[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25635-25636]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08840]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0641; FRL-10930-01-OMS]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment
Request; BEACH Act Grant Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Beaches Environmental Assessment
and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act Grant Program (EPA ICR Number 2048.07,
OMB Control Number 2040-0244) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through April 30, 2023. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on July 11, 2022 during a
60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for
public comments.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before May 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OW-2015-0641, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Larimer, Office of Water, Office
of Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division,
(4305T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 566-0409; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register
on July 11, 2022 during a 60-day comment period (87 FR 41124). This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. Supporting
documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be
collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket
can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA
Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-
1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
(BEACH) Act amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) in part and authorizes the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award BEACH Act Grants to
coastal and Great Lakes states, tribes, and territories (collectively
referred to as jurisdictions) to develop and implement beach monitoring
and notification programs. The grants assist those jurisdictions to
develop and implement a consistent approach to monitor coastal
recreational water quality; assess, manage, and communicate health
risks from waterborne microbial contamination; notify the public of
pollution occurrences; and post beach advisories and closures to
prevent public exposure to microbial pathogens.
    Per CWA section 406 (33 U.S.C. 1346), to qualify for a BEACH Act
grant a jurisdiction must submit information to EPA documenting that
its beach monitoring and notification program is consistent with
performance criteria outlined in the National Beach Guidance and
Required Performance Criteria for Grants, 2014 Edition. In addition,
recipients of BEACH Act grants must submit water quality monitoring
data and information on public notification actions to EPA. All beach
program information will be collected by EPA's Office of Science and
Technology, stored in the Beach Advisory and Closing On-line
Notification (BEACON) system, and accessible via EPA's Beaches website
for use by the public; state, tribal, territorial, and local
environmental and public health agencies; and EPA.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Potential respondents to this ICR
are recipients of BEACH Act grants, including 29 coastal and Great
Lakes states, 4 tribes, 5 U.S. territories, and Erie County,
Pennsylvania.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain or retain a
benefit (Section 406 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1346).
    Estimated number of respondents: 40 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual; however, the Agency encourages more
frequent reporting to provide more up-to-date information to the
public.
    Total estimated burden: 322,954 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $22,976,864 (per year), includes $9,955,800
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 230,953 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase adjusts estimates in response to
feedback to better account for labor costs and to structure the ICR to
better align with the burden associated with the present program.
Specifically, the increase is due to three main reasons: (1) the
existing ICR does not fully capture the respondent labor associated
with collecting water quality samples, (2) the restructuring of actions
into developmental and annual grant activities and subsequent
recalculation of the associated burden, and (3) the anticipated
addition of one tribal respondent. The total respondent cost increased
by $7.459M due to the changes described above, an increase in the cost
to analyze water samples, and slight increases in the salary rates.
However, this increase is offset by a $1.5M decrease in respondent O&M
cost resulting from using actual respondent sampling frequency data
rather than previous estimates that overcounted sampling. Agency burden
and cost increased by 117 hours because the existing ICR did not
capture some of the labor associated with the administration of beach
grants or the Agency O&M cost for contractor assistance to
jurisdictions

with data submission and maintaining the statutorily required database.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-08840 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57913-57914]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23368]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Delayed Applications

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of applications delayed more than 180 days.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c),
PHMSA is publishing the following list of special permit applications
that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay
and the expected completion date for action on each application is
provided in association with each identified application.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Special Permits and Approvals, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Key to ``Reason for Delay''

1. Awaiting additional information from applicant
2. Extensive public comment under review
3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or
precedentsetting and requires extensive analysis
4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of special
permit applications

Meaning of Application Number Suffixes

N--New application
M--Modification request
R--Renewal Request
P--Party to Exemption Request

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 3, 2015.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated
              Application No.                               Applicant                 Reason for      date of
                                                                                delay       completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15744-M....................................  Praxair Distribution, Inc., Danbury,              4      09-30-2015
                                              CT.
15097-M....................................  US Consumer Product Safety Commission,            4      10-31-2015
                                              Denver, CO.
14149-M....................................  Digital Wave Corporation, Centennial,             4      10-31-2015
                                              CO.
14206-M....................................  Digital Wave Corporation's,                       4      10-31-2015
                                              Centennial, CO.
15071-M....................................  Orbital ATK, Inc., Dulles, VA.........            4      09-30-2015
15767-N....................................  Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha,            4      09-30-2015
                                              NE.
16212-N....................................  Entegris, Inc., Billerica, MA.........            4      10-31-2015
16220-N....................................  Americase, Wexahache, TX..............            4      09-30-2015
16249-N....................................  Optimized Energy Solutions, LLC,                  3      09-30-2015
                                              Durango, CO.
16320-N....................................  Digital Wave Corporation, Centennial,             3      10-01-2015
                                              CO.
16337-N....................................  Volkswagen Group of America (VWGoA),              4      10-31-2015
                                              Herndon, VA.
16366-N....................................  Department of Defense, Scott AFB, IL..            4      09-30-2015
16395-N....................................  Chandler Instruments Company, LLC,                4      09-30-2015
                                              Broken Arrow, OK.
16396-N....................................  Eniware LLC, Washington, DC...........            4      10-15-2015
16356-N....................................  United Launch Alliance, LLC,                      4      09-30-2015
                                              Centennial, CO.
16371-N....................................  Volkswagen Group of America (VWGoA),              4      09-30-2015
                                              Herndon, VA.
16414-N....................................  Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.,                 4      10-30-2015
                                              Allentown,PA.
16001-N....................................  VELTEK ASSOCIATES, INC., Malvern, PA..            3      09-30-2015
16279-P....................................  Twin Enterprise International, LLC,               4      09-30-2015
                                              Chandler, AZ.
12412-P....................................  TerraChem Inc., Fellows, CA...........            4      09-30-2015
11860-R....................................  GATX Corporation, Chicago, IL.........            4      10-31-2015
8009-R.....................................  NK Co., Ltd., Busan City, KR..........            4      09-30-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-23368 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63919-63922]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26833]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84737; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-74]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rules
6.62-O and 6.37A-O To Add New Order Types and Quotation Designations

December 6, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On October 5, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
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 NYSE Arca Rules 6.62-O (Certain Types of Orders Defined) and
6.37A-O (Market Maker Quotations) to add new order types and quotation
designations. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 24, 2018.\3\ On December 4, 2018, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84451 (October 18,
2018), 83 FR 53692 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange made technical corrections
to cross references in the proposed rule text. Because Amendment No.
1 does not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule
change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, it is not subject
to notice and comment. The amendment is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2018-74/srnysearca201874.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

A. Order Types

    Currently, Rule 6.62-O sets forth the order types available on the
Exchange, including Liquidity Adding Orders (each an ``ALO'') and PNP
(Post No Preference) Orders, both of which provide market participants
control over how their orders interact with contra-side liquidity.
Specifically, an ALO is a

Limit Order that is rejected if it is marketable against the NBBO on
arrival.\5\ A PNP Order is a Limit Order that is eligible to interact
solely with interest on the Exchange, will not route, and will cancel
if it locks or crosses the NBBO.\6\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule
6.62-O to add two order types that build on the existing ALO and PNP
Order functionality to allow for repricing (rather than cancellation or
rejection of orders) under certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 6.62-O(t) (providing that ``a Liquidity Adding
Order is a Limit Order which is to be accepted only if it is not
executable at the time of receipt. Orders with the liquidity adding
instruction will not be routed if marketable against the NBBO, but
will be rejected. Liquidity adding orders may only be entered as a
Day Order''). The Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (t) of this
Rule to define Liquidity Adding Orders as ``ALOs'' and make
conforming changes to the Rule. See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t). The
Exchange also proposes to modify the Rule to reflect that ``[a]n ALO
or RALO, as defined in paragraph (t)(1) of this Rule, will be
rejected if entered outside of Core Trading Hours or during a
trading halt or, if resting, will be cancelled in the event of a
trading halt.'' See id.
    \6\ See Rule 6.62-O(p) (providing that a PNP Order ``is a Limit
Order to buy or sell that is to be executed in whole or in part on
the Exchange, and the portion not so executed is to be ranked in the
Consolidated Book, without routing any portion of the order to
another market center; provided, however, the Exchange shall cancel
a PNP Order that would lock or cross the NBBO''). The Exchange
proposes to capitalize the ``Market Center'' as used in paragraph
(p) of the Rule, which is a defined term in Rule 6.1A-O(6). See
proposed Rule 6.62-O(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Repricing ALO (``RALO'')
    The Exchange proposes to provide market participants the ability to
send in ALOs designated as RALO.\7\ As proposed, a RALO will be
repriced (rather than be rejected) if it would either trade as the
liquidity taker or display at a price that locks or crosses any
interest on the Exchange or the NBBO.\8\ Specifically, an incoming RALO
to buy (sell) that would trade with any displayed or undisplayed sell
(buy) interest on the Consolidated Book will be displayed at a price
one minimum price variation (``MPV'') below (above) such sell (buy)
interest.\9\ An incoming RALO to buy (sell) that is not marketable
against interest in the Consolidated Book but that would lock or cross
the NBO (NBB) will be displayed at a price that is one MPV below
(above) the NBO (NBB).\10\ If the sell (buy) interest in the
Consolidated Book or NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the display price of
the RALO to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at which it is
eligible to trade will be continuously adjusted, up (down) to the
RALO's limit price.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1). The Exchange also proposes
that a RALO that is designated as a Reserve Order will be rejected.
See id.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1)(A).
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resting RALO to buy (sell) that is displayed one MPV below
(above) interest on the Consolidated Book would be eligible to trade at
its display price.\12\ A resting RALO to buy (sell) that is displayed
at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) would be eligible to
trade at the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB)
updates to lock or cross the RALO's display price, such RALO will trade
at its display price in time priority behind other eligible interest
already displayed at that price.\13\ Each time there is an update to
the price of the RALO, the Exchange will rank the RALO by time priority
behind other eligible interest already at that price.\14\ If multiple
RALOs simultaneously reprice to the same price at which they are
eligible to trade, the RALOs will be prioritized based on the time of
original order entry.\15\ Furthermore, an incoming RALO will be
cancelled if its limit price to buy (sell) is more than a configurable
number of MPVs above (below) the initial display price (on arrival),
after first trading with eligible interest, if any.\16\ The Exchange
will determine the configurable number of MPVs, which will be announced
by Trader Update.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1)(A)(i).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1)(A)(ii).
    \14\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1)(A)(iii).
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(t)(1)(B).
    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Repricing PNP Order (``RPNP'')
    The Exchange proposes to provide market participants the ability to
send in PNP Orders designated as RPNP.\18\ As proposed, a RPNP is a PNP
Order that will be repriced instead of cancelled after trading with
interest in the Consolidated Book, if it would lock or cross the
NBBO.\19\ Specifically, a RPNP to buy (sell) that would lock or cross
the NBO (NBB) will be displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the
NBO (NBB).\20\ If the NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the display price of
the RPNP to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at which it is
eligible to trade will be continuously adjusted, up (down) to the limit
price of the RPNP.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(p)(1). The Exchange proposes that
a RPNP received during pre-open or a trading halt will be treated as
a PNP Order (i.e., as a Limit Order and will not reprice) for
purposes of participating in opening auctions or re-opening
auctions. See proposed Rule 6.62-O(p). A RPNP may only be entered as
a Day Order and a RPNP that is designated as a Reserve Order will be
rejected. See proposed Rule 6.62-O(p)(1).
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O (p)(1)(A).
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A RPNP to buy (sell) that is displayed at a price one MPV below
(above) the NBO (NBB) will trade at the NBO (NBB); provided, however,
that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock or cross the RPNP's display
price, such RPNP will trade at its display price in time priority
behind other eligible interest already displayed at that price.\22\
Each time there is an update to the price of the RPNP, the Exchange
will rank the RPNP by time priority behind other eligible interest
already at that price.\23\ If multiple RPNPs simultaneously reprice to
the same price at which they are eligible to trade, the RPNPs will be
prioritized based on the time of original order entry.\24\ Similar to
the proposed RALO, an incoming RPNP will be cancelled if its limit
price to buy (sell) is more than a configurable number of MPVs above
(below) the initial display price (on arrival), after first trading
with eligible interest, if any. The Exchange will determine the
configurable number of MPVs, which will be announced by Trader Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(p)(1)(A)(i).
    \23\ See proposed Rule 6.62-O(p)(1)(A)(ii).
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Quotation Designations

    Currently, Rule 6.37A-O(a) defines Market Maker quotes, including
quotations designated as Market Maker--Light Only (``MMLO''), and
specifies how such quotes are processed when a series is open for
trading. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A-O(a) to add two new
quote designations to provide Market Makers with the same functionality
for their quotations as are proposed for orders designated as RALO and
RPNP entered on the Exchange.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 53695. The Exchange represents
that the proposed quotation designations would function similar to
the proposed RALO and RPNP. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Market Maker--Add Liquidity Only Quotation (``MMALO'')
    The Exchange proposes to provide Market Makers the ability to
designate quotations as MMALO.\26\ An incoming or resting MMALO will
never trade as the liquidity taker or display at a price that locks or
crosses any interest on the Exchange or the NBBO.\27\ Instead of

trading, an MMALO will be repriced based on contra-side interest
pursuant to proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A).\28\ Specifically, an
incoming MMALO to buy (sell) that would trade with any sell (buy)
interest on the Consolidated Book will be displayed at a price one MPV
below (above) such sell (buy) interest.\29\ An incoming MMALO to buy
(sell) that is not marketable against interest in the Consolidated Book
but that would lock or cross the NBO (NBB) will be displayed at a price
that is one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB).\30\ If the sell (buy)
interest in the Consolidated Book or NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the
display price of the MMALO to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at
which it is eligible to trade will be continuously adjusted, up (down)
to the MMALO's limit price.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4)(A)(i). The
Exchange proposes to delete a reference to MMLO in paragraph (a)(4)
and proposes to separately describe the treatment of the various
quote types when a series is open for trading. See proposed Rule
6.37A-O(a)(4).
    \27\ Because incoming quotations, other than an MMALO, would
immediately ``trade with contra-side interest in the Consolidated
Book at prices that do not trade through interest on another Market
Center,'' the Exchange proposes to modify the rule to carve out
incoming MMALOs. See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A). The Exchange
also proposes to replace references to ``another Market Center''
with ``the NBBO'' to add clarity and consistency to the Rule. See
id. See also proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C)(i),(D)(i)-(ii).
    \28\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(B).
    \29\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A)(i).
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed RALO, a resting MMALO to buy (sell) that is
displayed one MPV below (above) interest on the Consolidated Book will
trade at its display price.\32\ A resting MMALO to buy (sell) that is
displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) will trade at
the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock
or cross the MMALO's display price, such MMALO will trade at its
display price in time priority behind other eligible interest already
displayed at that price.\33\ Each time there is an update to the
MMALO's price, the Exchange will rank the MMALO by time priority behind
other eligible interest already at that price.\34\ If multiple MMALOs
simultaneously reprice to the same price at which they are eligible to
trade, the MMALOs will be prioritized based on the time of original
order entry.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A)(i)(a).
    \33\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A)(i)(b).
    \34\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(A)(i)(c).
    \35\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To incorporate MMALO (and MMRP discussed below) into existing rule
text, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.37A-O by re-organizing and
re-numbering related rule text regarding the treatment of untraded
incoming quotations. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide
that ``[a]ny untraded quantity of an incoming quotation will be added
to the Consolidated Book, except in the circumstances specified below,
which result in the remaining balance being cancelled,'' \36\ including
when the incoming quotation ``is not designated as MMALO or MMRP'' and
locks or crosses the NBBO and when it is designated as MMLO and locks
or crosses undisplayed interest.\37\ Similarly, the Exchange proposes
to modify Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4) to provide that an incoming quotation that
locks or crosses the NBBO would be rejected, so long as ``it is not
designated as MMALO or MMRP'' and cannot trade with interest in the
Consolidated Book at prices that do not trade through the NBBO.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C).
    \37\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C)(i) and (ii).
    \38\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming quotation will be rejected, and the Exchange will
cancel the Market Maker's current quotation on the same side of the
market, if it is designated as MMALO, and has a limit price to buy
(sell) that is more than a configurable number of MPVs above (below)
the initial display price of the MMALO.\39\ The Exchange will determine
the configurable number of MPVs, which will be announced by Trader
Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D)(iii). The Exchange notes
that incoming MMALOs that fail the MPV check are rejected while
similarly-priced RALOs would be accepted and then cancelled. See
Notice, supra note 3, at 53696, n.24. The Exchange also proposes to
re-locate rule text that is currently at the end of this provision
to the beginning, such that the Rules states that ``[a]n incoming
quotation will be rejected, and the Exchange will cancel the Market
Maker's current quotation on the same side of the market, if:''. See
proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Market Maker--Repricing Quotation (``MMRP'')
    The Exchange proposes to provide Market Makers the ability to
designate quotations as MMRP.\40\ An incoming or resting quotation
designated as MMRP will never display at a price that locks or crosses
the NBBO.\41\ Instead, after trading with interest in the Consolidated
Book, an incoming MMRP to buy (sell) that locks or crosses the NBO
(NBB) will be displayed at a price that is one MPV below (above) the
NBO (NBB).\42\ If the NBO (NBB) moves up (down), the display price of
the MMRP to buy (sell) and the undisplayed price at which it is
eligible to trade would be continuously adjusted, up (down) to the
MMRP's limit price.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(C) and (a)(4)(B).
    \41\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(C).
    \42\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B).
    \43\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed RPNP, an MMRP to buy (sell) that is
displayed at a price one MPV below (above) the NBO (NBB) will trade at
the NBO (NBB); provided, however, that if the NBO (NBB) updates to lock
or cross the MMRP's display price, such MMRP will trade at its display
price in time priority behind other eligible interest already displayed
at that price.\44\ Each time there is an update to the price of the
MMRP, the Exchange will rank the MMRP by time priority behind other
eligible interest already at that price.\45\ If multiple MMRPs
simultaneously reprice to the same price at which they are eligible to
trade, the MMRPs will be prioritized based on the time of original
order entry.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B)(i).
    \45\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    \46\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An incoming MMRP that has a limit price more than a configurable
number of MPVs above (below) the initial display price (on arrival)
will first trade with marketable interest in the Consolidated Book up
(down) to the NBO (NBB) and any remaining balance will be
cancelled.\47\ Similarly, the Exchange will reject an incoming MMRP
that does not trade (i.e., because there is no marketable interest in
the Consolidated Book) and has a limit price to buy (sell) that is more
than a configurable number of MPVs above (below) the initial display
price (on arrival) of the MMRP.\48\ The Exchange will determine the
configurable number of MPVs, which will be announced by Trader
Update.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C)(iii).
    \48\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(D). The Exchange notes that
incoming MMRPs that fail the MPV check are rejected while similarly-
priced RPNPs would be accepted and then cancelled. See Notice, supra
note 3, at 53696, n.32.
    \49\ Because the MMRP is cancelled, the Exchange would also
cancel the opposite-side quote for that Market Maker. See proposed
Rule 6.37A-O(a)(4)(C) (providing, ``[w]hen such quantity of an
incoming quotation is cancelled, the Exchange will also cancel the
Market Maker's current quotation on the opposite side of the
market'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a series is not open for trading (i.e., during pre-open or a
trading halt), a Market Maker may submit an MMRP, which will be
eligible to participate in the opening auction and re-opening auction,
as applicable, at the limit price of the MMRP.\50\ All resting
quotations will be cancelled in the event of a trading halt.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(5).
    \51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To reflect the proposed quotation designations in Rule 6.37A-O, the
Exchange proposes to re-organize paragraph (a) of the Rule by re-
locating rule text stating that ``a quotation will

not route'' from existing paragraph (a)(3)(D) to paragraph (a)(2);
adding new paragraph (a)(3) to provide that ``[a] Market Maker may
designate a quote as follows''; and re-numbering the remainder of the
paragraph to account for such changes.\52\ In addition, the Exchange
proposes to renumber the description of an MMLO as paragraph (a)(3)(A),
and amend the rule text to provide that on arrival, a quotation
designated MMLO will trade with displayed interest in the Consolidated
Book only.\53\ Once resting, the MMLO designation no longer applies and
such quotation is eligible to trade with displayed and undisplayed
interest.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(2)-(3).
    \53\ See proposed Rule 6.37A-O(a)(3)(A).
    \54\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange states that it will announce by Trader Update the
implementation date of the proposed rule change within 90 days of the
effective date of this proposed rule change.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 53697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act,\56\ and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\57\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\58\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f).
    \57\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that by providing market participants with
two new order types that build on the existing ALO and PNP Order
functionality to allow for repricing instead of cancellation or
rejection of orders under certain circumstances, the proposed rule
change could give market participants greater flexibility and control
over the circumstances under which their orders interact with contra
side-interest on the Exchange. By increasing the opportunities for
execution at multiple price points and encouraging the provision of
greater displayed liquidity to the market, the proposal is reasonably
designed to facilitate the mechanism of price discovery. The Commission
also believes that ranking a repriced RALO or repriced RPNP behind
other interest already eligible to trade at a price, as well as ranking
such orders that simultaneously reprice to the same price by time of
original order entry, is reasonably designed to preserve the principles
of priority and therefore promote just and equitable principles of
trade. Finally, the Commission notes other options exchanges offer
similar order types as proposed by the Exchange.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 53697, n.39 (citing Nasdaq
Options Market Chapter VI Trading Systems, Sec. 1(e)(11) and Nasdaq
PHLX LLC Rule 1080(m)(iv)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal to add the two new quotation
designations is designed to provide Market Makers with the same
functionality for their quotations as are proposed for orders entered
on the Exchange. The proposed quotation designations are similar to how
the proposed RALO and RPNP will function and may enable Market Makers
to exert greater control over how their quotes would interact with
contra-side liquidity, while affording additional opportunities to
provide liquidity to the market. The Commission notes that, absent the
proposed repricing functionality associated with the MMALO and MMRP, a
Market Maker quote that locks or crosses interest on the Exchange or an
away market will reject or cancel. In the case of MMALOs, the proposal
is reasonably designed to promote the display of liquidity because such
quotations would be displayed at the next-best aggressive price instead
of being cancelled. The Commission believes that the proposal will also
ensure that an MMALO will always add liquidity as maker, rather than
remove liquidity as taker, while ensuring that MMALOs priced too far
through the contra-side interest on the Exchange or the NBBO will be
rejected. As such, the proposed MMALO could assist Market Makers in
maintaining a fair and orderly market and encourage Market Makers to
provide displayed liquidity to the market, thus contributing to price
discovery. In the case of MMRPs, the proposal may afford Market Makers
more certainty when providing liquidity, while ensuring that MMRPs
priced too far through the contra-side NBBO will cancel or reject after
trading with any eligible interest on the Exchange. The Commission
believes that ranking the repriced MMALO or repriced MMRP by time
priority behind other interest already available to trade at a price
preserves principles of priority and therefore would promote just and
equitable principles of trade.
    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed quotation
designations are reasonably designed to provide Market Makers with a
greater level of determinism, in terms of managing their exposure, and
thus could encourage more aggressive liquidity provision, resulting in
more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. This may help improve
the mechanism of price discovery. Moreover, the Commission notes that
other options exchanges have adopted quote types designed to strengthen
market making.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 53698, n.45 (citing Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC Rule 515(d) and BOX Options
Exchange LLC IM-8050-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\61\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2018-74), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26833 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Placeholder: confidential business information item

Hunton and National Refrigerants Meeting on 3-13-08

For more information please contact Ross Brennan by phone at
202-343-9226 or by email at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27183-27185]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0018]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH)

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

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH) will meet June 25, 2009, in Washington, DC.

DATES:
    FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.,
Thursday, June 25, 2009.
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Comments and requests
to

speak at the FACOSH meeting must be submitted (postmarked, sent,
transmitted) by June 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES:
    FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet in Room C-5521, Conference Room 4,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210.
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Comments and requests
to speak at the FACOSH meeting, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2009-
0018, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit materials, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for making submissions.
    Facsimile: If your submission, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: You must submit three copies of your submissions to the OSHA
Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY (877)
889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and OSHA Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Requests for special accommodations for FACOSH meeting: Submit
requests for special accommodations by telephone, e-mail or hard copy
to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2009-
0018). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular
mail may result in a significant delay in their receipt. Please contact
the OSHA Docket Office, at the address above, for information about
security procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express
delivery, and messenger or courier service. For additional information
on submitting comments and requests to speak, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
    Comments and requests to speak, including any personal information
provided, will be posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting certain
personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice, go to Docket No. OSHA-2009-0018 at http://
www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All
documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some documents (e.g., copyrighted
material) are not publicly available to read or download through http:/
/www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Ms. Jennifer Ashley, OSHA, Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For general information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, OSHA, Office of
Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3622, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2122; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For special accommodations for the FACOSH meeting: Ms. Veneta
Chatmon, OSHA, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1999; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    FACOSH will meet Thursday, June 25, 2009, in Washington, DC. All
FACOSH meetings are open to the public.
    FACOSH is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 19 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668),
and Executive Order 12196 to advise the Secretary of Labor on all
matters relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal
employees. This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to
a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce
and how to encourage each Federal Executive Branch Department and
Agency to establish and maintain effective occupational safety and
health programs.
    The tentative agenda for the FACOSH meeting includes:
     FY 2009 performance status of Federal Executive Branch
Agencies in meeting the four goals of the Presidential Safety, Health,
and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative;
     Progress on the Federal Agency injury and illness
recordkeeping data collection effort;
     Tracking incidents related to emergency response and
recovery operations;
     Update on the Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program
(FEDTARG 09);
     FACOSH member nominations;
     OSHA outreach and education related to H1N1 Influenza; and
     OSHA and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009.
    FACOSH meetings are transcribed and detailed minutes of the
meetings are prepared. Meeting transcripts, minutes and other materials
presented at the meeting are included in the FACOSH meeting record.

Public Participation

    FACOSH meetings and meetings of FACOSH subcommittees are open to
the public. Interested parties may submit a request to make an oral
presentation to FACOSH by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. The request must state the amount of time requested to speak,
the interest represented (e.g., organization name), if any, and a brief
outline of the presentation. Requests to address FACOSH may be granted
as time permits and at the discretion of the FACOSH chair.
    Interested parties also may submit comments, including data and
other information, using any of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. OSHA will provide all submissions to FACOSH members prior to
the meeting.
    Individuals who need special accommodations and wish to attend the
FACOSH meeting must contact Ms. Chatmon by any of the methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section.

Submissions and Access to Meeting Record

    You may submit comments, requests to speak and requests for special
accommodations (1) electronically, (2) by facsimile, or (3) by hard
copy. All submissions, including attachments and other materials, must
identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this notice
(Docket No. OSHA-2009-0018). You may supplement electronic submissions
by uploading documents electronically. If, instead, you wish to submit
hard copies of supplementary documents, you must submit three copies to
the OSHA Docket Office using the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.
The additional materials must clearly identify your

electronic submission by name, date and docket number.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of submissions. For
information about security procedures concerning the delivery of
submissions by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY (877) 889-
5627).
    Meeting transcripts and minutes as well as written comments and
requests to speak are included in the public record of the FACOSH
meeting (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0018). Written comments and requests to
speak are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting certain
personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates.
Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index, some documents (e.g., copyrighted material) are not publicly
available to read or download through http://www.regulations.gov. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to
make submissions and to access the docket and exhibits is available at
the Web site's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through the Web site and for
assistance in using the Internet to locate submissions and other
documents in the docket.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and
other relevant information, is also available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 1-5 of
Executive Order 12196, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.2) and regulations issued under FACA (41 CFR Part 102-3), and
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-13342 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Chapter 11
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Contents
11.1	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review	2
11.2	Paperwork Reduction Act	3
11.3	Regulatory Flexibility Act	3
11.4	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act	3
11.5	Executive Order 13132: Federalism	3
11.6	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments	5
11.7	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks	5
11.8	Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use	5
11.9	National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act	6
11.10	Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations	6

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Commenters 0192 and 0222 believe that this legislation is unnecessary under Executive Order 13563. Commenter 0192 says that that the legislation is arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with the law because the rule "does not promote coordination, simplification, and harmonizing of rulemakings to avoid redundant, unnecessary, inconsistent, or overlapping regulation."  Commenter 0222 states that the regulation's costs do not outweigh its benefits.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter. This final action establishes the first uniform national limits on the amount of carbon pollution that modified and reconstructed EGUs will be allowed to emit and, thus, there is no overlap with other regulations. In addition, the EPA took deliberate efforts to promote coordination, simplification and harmonization of rulemakings and avoid redundancies and inconsistencies. Where possible, rule requirements are in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 requirements for monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Because the EPA has historically been notified of few units taking action under the NSPS modification or reconstruction provisions, the EPA does not anticipate significant costs associated with this standard.
Commenter 0186 believes that the EPA needs to perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis before it claims that the proposed rule will result in higher benefits than costs. The commenter also states that this ruling cannot be viewed "in a vacuum" and must be considered alongside the NSPS and the EPA Power Plan rulings as a whole.
The EPA points out that it does not claim that the rule will result in higher benefits than costs. In fact, the EPA expects that the standards for modified and reconstructed EGUs will not result in any significant emission reductions, costs, or quantified benefits in the period of analysis. For the reasons summarized below and explained more fully in the RIA for the final rule, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis must be performed.
With regard to reconstructions, the EPA is only aware of one EGU that has notified the EPA that it has reconstructed under the reconstruction provision of section 111(b). As a result, the EPA anticipates that few EGUs will undertake reconstruction in the period of analysis. For this reason, the standards will not result in any significant emission reductions, costs, or quantified benefits in the period of analysis. Likewise, the agency does not anticipate any impacts on the price of electricity or energy supply. The rule is not expected to raise any resource adequacy concerns since reserve margins will not be impacted and the rule does not impose any additional requirements on existing facilities not triggering the reconstruction provision. There are no macroeconomic or employment impacts expected as a result of the standards. Due to the extremely limited data available on reconstructions, it is not possible to conduct a representative illustrative analysis of what costs and benefits might result from this rule in the unlikely case that a unit were to reconstruct.
With regard to modifications, the EPA anticipates that few EGUs will take actions that would be considered modifications and subject to the final standards of performance during the period of analysis. For this reason, the standards will result in minimal emission reductions, costs, or quantified benefits in the period of analysis. Likewise, the agency does not anticipate any impacts on the price of electricity or energy supplies. The rule is not expected to raise any resource adequacy concerns, since reserve margins will not be impacted and the rule does not impose any additional requirements on existing facilities not triggering the modification provision. There are no macroeconomic or employment impacts expected as a result of the standards. Due to the limited data available on past modifications and the diversity of existing units that could potentially modify, it is not possible to conduct a representative illustrative analysis of what costs and benefits might result from this rule in the unlikely case that a unit were to take an action that would be classified as a modification.
With regard to new construction, the EPA expects that that the standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes, benefits or costs for new units constructed by 2020. U.S. DOE, EPA and industry projections indicate that, due to the economics of coal and natural gas, among other factors, new power plants that are built over the next decade or more would be expected to meet the standards even in the absence of the rule. Specifically, no new, unplanned conventional coal-fired capacity is projected to be built in the analysis period, and, absent this rule, any new NGCC that may be built is expected to have an annual emission rate in compliance with the standard.

Overall, the EPA anticipates that the NSPS for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed EGUs will result in minimal costs or quantified benefits in the period of analysis. A separate cost-benefit analysis was appropriately conducted for the CAA section 111(d) carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
No comments received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
No comments received.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
No comments received.
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Commenter 0186 believes that the EPA's position on dual applicability under 111(b) and 111(d) is an "illegitimate rewriting of the Clean Air Act definitions." The commenter claims that this viewpoint is also a display of federalism, and "by holding a modified source to both federal standards under Section 111(b) and a state plan under Section 111(d), the EPA illegitimately co-opts a traditional area of state authority." According to the commenter, "the definitions for "new"/"modified" and "existing" sources that Congress wrote into the CAA defined not only different applicable statutory provisions but also marked a division of authority between state and federal governments. Authority over existing sources remained with the states and their police power, but new and modified sources were subject to federal regulation by EPA. See United States v. City of Painesville, 431 F. Supp. 496, 501 n.9 (N.D. Ohio 1977), aff'd 644 F.2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 894 (1981)."
The commenter goes on to say that "The division of labor is reinforced by CAA Section 111(c), which permits a state to enforce federal new source performance standards (NSPS) only after the state submits a plan and the Administrator 'delegate[s] to such State any authority he has under this chapter to implement and enforce such standards.' The requirement of an explicit delegation indicates that states are generally to stay out of regulating new sources. Correspondingly, Congress explicitly left to the states the matter of regulating existing sources by directing the EPA Administrator to formulate a process through which states can do so, rather than directing the Administrator to regulate them directly. EPA can regulate existing sources directly only when the states fail to submit an acceptable state implementation plan. The symmetry between Sections 111(b)/111(c) and Section 111(d) describes the division of state and federal power."
The commenter fears that even if the legislation doesn't take away the state authority over existing sources, it will at least give the federal government the power to override the state action plan with stricter legislation. They state: "Although EPA does not immediately diminish state authority in so doing, it does expand its purview into an area that Congress deliberately left to the states, thereby disrupting the careful balance Congress struck. And where influence extends, preemption soon follows: should EPA and state regulations conflict, there is little doubt EPA would seek to wield its Supremacy Clause cudgel. See Nat'l-Southwire Aluminum Co. v. EPA, 838 F.2d 835, 841 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding facility to federal NSPS instead of state 111(d) plan after state relaxed its regulations). By subjecting EGUs to both federal (Section 111(b)) and state (Section 111(d)) regulation, EPA gains a ratcheted power to hold EGUs to whichever regulation is stricter, which in turn gives EPA a directive control over state environmental policy: as EPA moves its standard, states must follow (and become even stricter) or lose control over their policy. This is the antithesis of the symmetrical division of power Congress wrote into Sections 111(b)/111(c) and Section 111(d). EPA's counter-textual reading of Section 111 disrupts the balance of authority Congress wrote into the Clean Air Act."
The concern raised by the commenter with regard to the EPA's position in the proposed CAA section 111(d) carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs regarding applicability under CAA sections 111(b) and (d) is addressed in the CAA section 111(d) action that the EPA is finalizing simultaneously with the CAA section 111(b) action. Specifically, in the proposed CAA section 111(d) rulemaking, the EPA proposed the interpretation that if an existing source is subject to a section 111(d) state plan, and then undertakes a modification or reconstruction, the source remains subject to the state plan, while also becoming subject to the modification or reconstruction requirements (79 FR 34830, 34903 - 4, June 18, 2014). As discussed in section VIII.D.2 of the preamble to the final carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs, the EPA is not finalizing a position on the issue, and is re-proposing and taking comment on the issue through the federal plan rulemaking being proposed concurrently with the 111(b) and (d) final actions. The EPA will propose and finalize its position on the issue through the federal plan rulemaking, which will be well in advance of the plan performance period beginning in 2022, at which point state plan obligations on existing sources are effectuated.
Commenter 0186 feels that the proposed ruling "violates principles of federalism because it hides political choices and prevents accountability. It forces states to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the garb of state "choice" - even though in fact the polices are compelled by the federal government. The Supreme Court has condemned such arrangements, because "where the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 169 (1992); see also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 923 (1997) (citing need for "accountability" as a reason to prohibit federal government from forcing state officials to implement federal policy). The EPA Power Plan thumbs its nose at democratic principles by confusing the chain of decision-making between federal and state regulators to avoid political transparency and accountability."
This comment appears to regard the CAA section 111(d) carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs in that the commenter refers to states adopting policies compelled by the federal government and to decision-making between federal and state regulators. Thus, a response is not provided here because the comment is outside the scope of the CAA section 111(b) standards of performance for GHG emissions from modified and reconstructed EGUs. Nevertheless, the EPA points out that CAA section 111(b) requirements that the EPA establishes apply directly to new, modified, or reconstructed EGUs and do not require states to submit implementation plans to regulate those EGUs as states will do with regard to existing EGUs under CAA section 111(d).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
No comments received.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
No comments received.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Commenter 0186 believes that the EPA's approach to estimating rate increases is flawed. The commenter states that "Because EPA commingles rates for coal-dependent states with those for coal-independent states, the overall mean rate figure is not an accurate portrayal of what will occur in either type of state." The commenter believes that the estimated rate increases are underestimated, and could rise by as much as 30%. According to the commenter, "A 30% percent increase matters to low-income ratepayers. Such a spike could be the difference between having heat and not having heat to warm a home during winter." The commenter feels that "EPA has no basis for assuming that the conjectural "benefits" of the EPA Power Plan will outweigh its certain costs on low-income ratepayers" because the EPA has not considered the social costs of unaffordable electricity on low-income households.
This comment appears to regard the CAA section 111(d) carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing EGUs in that the commenter refers to electricity rate increases in states as a result of the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Thus, a response is not provided here because the comment is outside the scope of the CAA section 111(b) standards of performance for GHG emissions from modified and reconstructed EGUs. Nevertheless, the EPA does not anticipate any impacts on the price of electricity or energy supplies as a result of the standards of performance for modified and reconstructed EGUs.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
No comments received.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
No comments received.