[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38970-38975]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15437]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741; FRL-9828-3]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
Within-the-Scope Determination for Amendments to California's
``Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where
TRUs Operate''; Notice of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of decision.

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

SUMMARY: EPA confirms that amendments promulgated by the California Air
Resources Board (``CARB'') are within the scope of an existing
authorization issued by EPA for California's in-use diesel-fueled TRU
regulations.

DATES: Petitions for review must be filed by August 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741. All documents relied upon in making this
decision, including those submitted to EPA by CARB, and public
comments, 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, located at
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 (202)
566-1744. The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center's Web
site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic mail (email)
address for the Air and Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the fax number is (202)
566-9744. An electronic version of the public docket is available
through the federal government's electronic public docket and comment
system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After
opening the www.regulations.gov Web site, enter EPA HQ-OAR-2012-0741 in
the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in box to view documents in the record
of CARB's TRU amendments within-the-scope authorization request.
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 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: Brenton M. Williams, Attorney-Advisor,
Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI
48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Chronology

    EPA granted an authorization for California's initial set of TRU
regulations on January 9, 2009.\1\ By letter dated May 13, 2011, CARB
submitted to EPA its request pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean
Air Act (``CAA'' or ``the Act''), regarding amendments to its
``Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where
TRUs Operate'' (hereinafter CARB's ``ATCM'' or ``TRU amendments'').\2\
CARB asked that EPA confirm that the amendments either fall within the
scope of the authorization EPA granted on January 9, 2009, pursuant to
section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act, or are not subject to CAA
preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 74 FR 3030 (January 16, 2009).
    \2\ California Air Resources Board (``CARB''), ``Request for
Authorization,'' May 13, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CARB's TRU Amendments

    Since EPA's grant of an authorization for California's TRU
regulations in 2009, CARB has promulgated several amendments, which are
at issue here. CARB's Board adopted the TRU amendments on November 18,
2010, in Resolution 10-39. CARB's TRU amendments accomplish three main
objectives: (1) Relax the TRU in-use compliance requirements for all
2003 and some 2004 model year TRUs and TRU generator sets (collectively
referred to as ``TRUs''); (2) clarify the operational useful life of
TRU flexibility engines \3\; and (3) establish new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for TRU original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs). CARB formally adopted the TRU amendments on February 4,
2011,\4\ and they became operative under California law on March 7,
2011. The

TRU amendments are codified at title 13, California Code of
Regulations, section 2477.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Flexibility engines are engines that meet less stringent
emission standards than otherwise required for new off-road engines.
CARB, ``Request that Amendments to California's Airborne Toxic
Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration
Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
Be Found Within the Scope of the Existing Authorization Granted
Pursuant To Section 209(e) Of The Clean Air Act'', EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0741-0002, (May 13, 2011), at page 3.
    \4\ CARB, ``Resolution 10-39,'' November 18, 2010; CARB,
``Executive Order R-11-001,'' February 2, 2011.
    \5\ CARB, ``Final Regulation Order for title 13, California Code
of Regulations, section 2477.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Relaxation of Standards for 2003 and 2004 Model Year TRUs
    These amendments allow owners of model year 2003 TRUs in the 25
horsepower (hp) and greater category the option of complying with the
ATCM's in-use standards by meeting the low emission TRU (``LETRU'')
standard, which achieves a 50 percent particulate matter (PM) emission
reduction. Prior to amendment, the ATCM had required that owners comply
with the more stringent ultra-low emission TRU (``ULETRU'') in-use
standard, which achieves an 85 percent PM reduction. This change,
according to CARB, provides owners with more compliance flexibility and
is needed because ULETRU compliance options presently are limited and
relatively costly compared to LETRU compliance costs. The compliance
date for meeting one of these standards would remain December 31, 2010,
seven years after the 2003 engine model year, which is the end of the
TRU's operational life.\6\ Seven years later (i.e., by December 31,
2017), owners choosing to comply by meeting the LETRU standard would be
required to meet the ULETRU standard.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Operational life is the life of the engine or unit as
allowed under the regulation before an in-use standard must be met.
Operational life should be distinguished from useful life, as
defined under new engine standards and used for survivability
(engine mortality over time) in engine population inventory reports.
CARB, ``Request that Amendments to California's Airborne Toxic
Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport Refrigeration
Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities Where TRUs Operate
Be Found Within the Scope of the Existing Authorization Granted
Pursuant To Section 209(e) Of The Clean Air Act'', EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0741-0002, (May 13, 2011), at page 2.
    \7\ CARB, ``Request that Amendments to California's Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities
Where TRUs Operate Be Found Within the Scope of the Existing
Authorization Granted Pursuant To Section 209(e) Of The Clean Air
Act,'' EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741-0002 (May 13, 2011) at page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendments similarly provide owners of 2003 and 2004 model year
TRU engines in the less than 25 hp category with the option of
complying with the in-use standards by meeting the LETRU in-use
standard in lieu of being required to meet the ULETRU standard by
December 31, 2010, for model year 2003 engines and December 31, 2011,
for model year 2004 engines. As with the larger horsepower engines,
those owners electing to comply by meeting the LETRU standard would
need to upgrade their model year 2003 and 2004 engines to the ULETRU
standard seven years after initial compliance in either 2010 or 2011
(i.e., by December 31, 2017 or 2018, respectively).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Clarification in Calculation of Operational Life for TRU Flexibility
Engines in Future
    When the TRU ATCM was first adopted, CARB assumed that TRU engines
manufactured in a specific year would meet the emission standards
applicable for that year and that these engines would be upgraded to
more stringent emission standards seven years after initial
certification. CARB subsequently discovered that TRU OEMs were using
significantly more flexibility engines in California than originally
anticipated, with the consequence that the ATCM is achieving fewer
emission reductions than forecasted. To address this problem, CARB
amended the regulation to clarify that for flexibility engines
installed in new TRUs after March 7, 2011 (the date that the amendments
became operative under California law), the seven-year operational life
of a TRU engine must be based on the effective model year of the
engine. The effective model year is defined as the last year that the
lower emission tier of the flexibility engine was in effect for new
engines. The amendments clarify that owners of TRU flexibility engines
installed before the operative date of the amendments would be provided
a full seven years of operational life from the year of the engine's
manufacture before having to meet the more stringent ULETRU in-use
performance standard. Flexibility engines installed after that date
will have a reduced operational life given that compliance would be
based on the last year that the flexibility engine's tier standard was
in effect. CARB maintains that owners will not be adversely affected as
TRU OEMs are required under the amendments to provide notice at the
point of sale to the end-user that the TRUs are equipped with
flexibility engines and have a shorter operational life. They must also
provide the end-user with the date that the engine must meet the ULETRU
standard.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CARB, ``Request that Amendments to California's Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities
Where TRUs Operate Be Found Within the Scope of the Existing
Authorization Granted Pursuant To Section 209(e) Of The Clean Air
Act'', EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741-0002, (May 13, 2011), at page 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. New Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for TRU OEMs
    CARB amended the TRU ATCM to require that TRU OEMs report
production information, including information on flexibility engines
installed in TRUs. The reporting, according to CARB, will ensure that
manufacturers provide the data necessary to ensure that owners properly
register TRUs in CARB's equipment registration system (ARBER) and more
accurately estimate emissions inventories, as well as allow CARB and
TRU owners to properly track flexibility engines. TRU OEMs would be
required to periodically report data on each TRU and installed engine
produced in future model years and submit reports on TRU sales from
previous years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA's Review of California's TRU Within-the-Scope Request

    By letter dated May 13, 2011, CARB submitted a request to EPA
seeking confirmation that these amendments are within the scope of the
authorization issued by EPA under section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act
on January 9, 2009. EPA announced its receipt of California's within-
the-scope confirmation request in a Federal Register notice on January
4, 2013.\11\ In that notice, EPA offered an opportunity for public
hearing and comment on CARB's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 78 FR 721 (January 4, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although CARB's request regarding its TRU amendments was submitted
as a within-the-scope request, EPA invited comment on several issues.
Within the context of a within-the-scope analysis, EPA invited comment
on whether California's standards: (1) Undermine California's previous
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as comparable Federal
standards; (2) affect the consistency of California's requirements with
section 202(a) of the Act; and (3) raise any other new issues affecting
EPA's previous waiver or authorization determinations. EPA also
requested comment on issues relevant to a full authorization analysis,
in the event that EPA determined that California's standards should not
be evaluated under the within-the-scope criteria noted above, and
should instead be subjected to a full authorization analysis.
Specifically, EPA sought comment on: (a) Whether CARB's determination
that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of
public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards is arbitrary
and capricious; (b) whether California needs

separate standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; and
(c) whether California's standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are consistent with section 202(a) of the Act.
    No party requested an opportunity for a hearing to present oral
testimony, and EPA received only one written comment. The comment
supports CARB's amendments, and encourages EPA to confirm that the
amendments are within the scope of CARB's TRU authorization. The
written comment is from the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (``MECA'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Comments of the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association (``MECA''), EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741-0003 (March 1, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Clean Air Act Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Authorizations

    Section 209(e)(1) of the Act permanently preempts any State, or
political subdivision thereof, from adopting or attempting to enforce
any standard or other requirement relating to the control of emissions
for certain new nonroad engines or vehicles.\13\ For all other nonroad
engines (including ``non-new'' engines), states are preempted from
adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements relating to the
control of emissions, except that section 209(e)(2) of the Act requires
EPA, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize
California to adopt and enforce such regulations unless EPA makes one
of three specifically enumerated findings. In addition, other states
with attainment plans may adopt and enforce such regulations if the
standards, and implementation and enforcement procedures, are identical
to California's standards. On July 20, 1994, EPA promulgated a rule
that sets forth, among other things, regulations providing the
criteria, as found in section 209(e)(2), which EPA must consider before
granting any California authorization request for new nonroad engine or
vehicle emission standards.\14\ EPA later revised these regulations in
1997.\15\ As stated in the preamble to the 1994 rule, EPA has
historically interpreted the section 209(e)(2)(iii) ``consistency''
inquiry to require, at minimum, that California standards and
enforcement procedures be consistent with section 209(a), section
209(e)(1), and section 209(b)(1)(C) (as EPA has interpreted that
subsection in the context of section 209(b) motor vehicle waivers).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ States are expressly preempted from adopting or attempting
to enforce any standard or other requirement relating to the control
of emissions from new nonroad engines which are used in construction
equipment or vehicles or used in farm equipment or vehicles and
which are smaller than 175 horsepower. Such express preemption under
section 209(e)(1) of the Act also applies to new locomotives or new
engines used in locomotives.
    \14\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
    \15\ 62 FR 67733 (December 30, 1997). The applicable
regulations, now in 40 CFR part 1074, subpart B, Sec.  1074.105,
provide:
    (a) The Administrator will grant the authorization if California
determines that its standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as
protective of public health and welfare as otherwise applicable
federal standards.
    (b) The authorization will not be granted if the Administrator
finds that any of the following are true:
    (1) California's determination is arbitrary and capricious.
    (2) California does not need such standards to meet compelling
and extraordinary conditions.
    (3) The California standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are not consistent with section 209 of the Act.
    (c) In considering any request from California to authorize the
state to adopt or enforce standards or other requirements relating
to the control of emissions from new nonroad spark-ignition engines
smaller than 50 horsepower, the Administrator will give appropriate
consideration to safety factors (including the potential increased
risk of burn or fire) associated with compliance with the California
standard.
    \16\ 59 FR 36969 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad
standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section
209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures
must not regulate engine categories that are permanently preempted from
state regulation. To determine consistency with section 209(b)(1)(C),
EPA typically reviews nonroad authorization requests under the same
``consistency'' criteria that are applied to motor vehicle waiver
requests. Pursuant to section 209(b)(1)(C), the Administrator shall not
grant California a motor vehicle waiver if the Administrator finds that
California ``standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not
consistent with section 202(a)'' of the Act. Previous decisions
granting waivers and authorizations have noted that state standards and
enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) if: (1)
there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of the
necessary technology giving appropriate consideration to the cost of
compliance within that time, or (2) the federal and state testing
procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements.

E. Within-the-Scope Determinations

    If California amends regulations that were previously granted an
authorization, EPA can confirm that the amended regulations are within
the scope of the previously granted authorization. Such within-the-
scope determinations are permissible without a full authorization
review if three conditions are met. First, the amended regulations must
not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the
aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as applicable
federal standards. Second, the amended regulations must not affect
consistency with section 202(a) of the Act. Third, the amended
regulations must not raise any ``new issues'' affecting EPA's prior
authorizations.

F. Deference to California

    In previous waiver decisions, EPA has recognized that the intent of
Congress in creating a limited review based on the section 209(b)(1)
criteria was to ensure that the federal government did not second-guess
state policy choices. This has led EPA to state:

    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. The
whole approach of the Clean Air Act is to force the development of
new types of emission control technology where that is needed by
compelling the industry to ``catch up'' to some degree with newly
promulgated standards. Such an approach . . . may be attended with
costs, in the shaped of reduced product offering, or price or fuel
economy penalties, and by risks that a wider number of vehicle
classes may not be able to complete their development work in time.
Since a balancing of these 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 40 FR 23103-23104 (May 28, 1975); see also LEV I Decision
Document at 64 (58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993)).

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.\18\

    \18\ 40 FR 23104; 58 FR 4166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Committee Report explained as part of the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air Act, where Congress had the opportunity to restrict
the waiver provision, it elected instead to explain California's
flexibility to adopt a complete program of motor vehicle emission
controls. The amendment is intended to ratify and strengthen the
California waiver provision and to affirm the underlying

intent of that provision, i.e., to afford California the broadest
possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health
of its citizens and the public welfare.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1110 (citing H.R.Rep. No. 294, 95
Cong., 1st Sess. 301-02 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Burden of Proof

    In Motor and Equip. Mfrs Assoc. v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095 (D.C. Cir.
1979) (``MEMA I''), the U.S. Court of Appeals stated 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.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d at 1122.

The court in MEMA I considered the standards of proof under section 209
for the two findings related to granting a waiver for an ``accompanying
enforcement procedure'' (as opposed to the standards themselves): (1)
protectiveness in the aggregate and (2) consistency with section 202(a)
findings. 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.''\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court upheld the Administrator's position that, to deny a
waiver, there must be ``clear and compelling evidence'' to show that
proposed procedures undermine the protectiveness of California's
standards.\22\ 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.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ 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 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.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., 40 FR 21102-103 (May 28, 1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opponents of the waiver bear the burden of showing that the
criteria for a denial of California's waiver request have been met. As
found in MEMA I, this obligation rests firmly with opponents of the
waiver in a section 209 proceeding:

    [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.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ MEMA I, 627 F.2d 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.''' \26\ Therefore, the
Administrator's burden is to act ``reasonably.'' \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id. at 1126.
    \27\ Id. at 1126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Within-the-Scope Analysis

    We initially evaluate California's TRU amendments by application of
our traditional within-the-scope analysis, as CARB requested. If we
determine that CARB's request does not meet the requirements for a
within-the-scope determination, we then evaluate the request based on a
full authorization analysis. EPA sought comment on a range of issues,
including those applicable to a within-the-scope analysis as well as
those applicable to a full authorization analysis. No party submitted a
comment that California's TRU amendments require a full authorization
analysis. Given the lack of comments on this issue, and the nature of
the amendments, EPA will evaluate California's TRU amendments by
application of our traditional within-the-scope analysis, as CARB
requested.
    EPA can confirm that amended regulations are within the scope of a
previously granted waiver of preemption if three conditions are met.
First, the amended regulations must not undermine California's
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. Second,
the amended regulations must not affect consistency with section 202(a)
of the Act. Third, the amended regulations must not raise any ``new
issues'' affecting EPA's prior authorizations.
1. California's Protectiveness Determination
    In its May 13, 2011 letter requesting a within-the scope
determination, CARB points out that in approving the amendments
relaxing the standards for 2003 and 2004 model year TRUs, it found, in
Resolution 10-39,\28\ that the TRU ATCM, as amended, in the aggregate,
continues to be at least as protective of public health and welfare as
applicable federal standards. CARB noted that EPA could not find that
CARB's determination is arbitrary and capricious, even though the
amended regulation includes short-term relaxation of in-use compliance
requirements in the 2003 and 2004 model years, for the reason that EPA
does not have comparable federal emission standards that regulate in-
use TRUs and TRU engines. This same reasoning applies to the TRU
amendments clarifying the operational useful life of TRU flexibility
engines, and the TRU amendments establishing new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for TRU original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CARB, ``Resolution 10-39,'' November 18, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating the materials submitted by CARB, and since EPA has
not adopted any standards or requirements for in-use TRU systems or
engines, and based on no comments submitted to the record, EPA cannot
find that California's TRU amendments undermine California's previous
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal
standards.

2. Consistency With Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
    EPA has stated in the past that California standards and
accompanying test procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a)
of the Clean Air Act if: (1) There is inadequate lead time to permit
the development of technology necessary to meet those requirements,
giving appropriate consideration to cost of compliance within the lead
time provided, or (2) the federal and California test procedures impose
inconsistent certification requirements.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010) and 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first prong of EPA's inquiry into consistency with section
202(a) of the Act depends upon technological feasibility. This requires
EPA to evaluate whether adequate technology already exists; or if it
does not, whether there is adequate time to develop and apply the
technology before the standards go into effect. In its May 13, 2011
letter, CARB states the amendments raise no new issue that disturb
EPA's earlier finding that the TRU in-use performance requirements are
technologically feasible within the lead time provided for compliance.
The amendments relax the initially adopted performance requirements,
providing additional lead time for owners of all 2003 model year TRU
engines, regardless of horsepower, and for 2004 model year TRUs with
horsepower ratings less than 25 hp, to comply with ULETRU in-use
standard. The amendments at issue have been adopted to provide owners
with more compliance flexibility, and are needed because ULETRU
compliance options presently are limited and relatively costly compared
to LETRU compliance costs. The relaxation will provide sufficient time
for market restrictions to abate and provide the full range of
compliance options that CARB envisioned when the TRU ATCM was first
adopted. In regard to the TRU amendments clarifying the operational
useful life of TRU flexibility engines, CARB stated in its May 13, 2011
letter that ``no issue of technological feasibility exists in that
manufacturers, in having used the flexibility provisions of federal and
state law, have never contended that use of such provisions was
necessitated for reasons of technical feasibility--i.e., because
engines certified to the most stringent emission tier could not be used
with newly manufactured TRU systems. Moreover, the clarifying
amendments ensure that existing owners' TRU-flexibility engines will
not be penalized.'' \30\ Additionally, the TRU amendments establishing
new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TRU OEMs do not impose
any new concerns regarding the technical feasibility of engine or
equipment manufacturers in meeting the in-use performance requirements
of the TRU ATCM and do not affect the bases for which the authorization
was initially granted.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CARB, ``Request that Amendments to California's Airborne
Toxic Control Measure for In-Use Diesel-Fueled Transport
Refrigeration Units (TRU) and TRU Generator Sets and Facilities
Where TRUs Operate Be Found Within the Scope of the Existing
Authorization Granted Pursuant to Section 209(e) of the Clean Air
Act[rdquo,] EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0741-0002 (May 13, 2011) at page 7.
    \31\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received no comments indicating that CARB's TRU amendments
present lead-time or technology issues with respect to consistency
under section 202(a) and knows of no other evidence to that effect.
Consequently, EPA cannot find that CARB's amendments affect our prior
determination regarding consistency with section 202(a), based on lead-
time or technological feasibility issues.
    The second prong of EPA's inquiry into consistency with section
202(a) of the Act depends on the compatibility of the federal and
California test procedures. California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures would be inconsistent with section 202(a) if the
California test procedures were to impose certification requirements
inconsistent with the federal certification requirements. Such
inconsistency means that manufacturers would be unable to meet both the
California and federal testing requirements using the same test vehicle
or engine.\32\ As discussed above in section II.1, there are no
comparable federal emission standards that regulate in-use TRUs and TRU
engines. Therefore, this prong does not warrant further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., 43 FR 32182 (July 25, 1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth above, EPA confirms that California's TRU
amendments do not undermine our prior determination concerning
consistency with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
3. New Issues
    EPA has stated in the past that if California promulgates
amendments that raise new issues affecting previously granted waivers
or authorizations, we would not confirm that those amendments are
within the scope of previous authorizations.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8056 (February 23, 2010) and 70 FR 22034
(April 28, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not believe that California's TRU amendments relaxing the
TRU in-use compliance requirements for all 2003 and some 2004 model
year TRUs and TRU generator sets, clarifying the operational useful
life of TRU flexibility engines, and establishing new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for TRU OEMs raise any new issues with
respect to our prior granting of the authorization. A relaxation of
compliance requirements and a clarification of operational useful life
of TRU flexibility engines are not new issues that substantively affect
the previously granted authorization, and are consistent with the
purpose and intent of the TRU ATCM and its previously granted
authorization. Additionally, although there are ``new'' reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for TRU OEMs, as stated above, they do not
impose any new concerns regarding the technical feasibility of meeting
the in-use performance requirements of the TRU ATCM and do not affect
the bases for which the authorization was initially granted. Moreover,
EPA did not receive any comments that CARB's TRU amendments raised new
issues affecting the previously granted authorization. Therefore, EPA
cannot find that CARB's TRU amendments raise new issues and
consequently, cannot deny CARB's request based on this criterion.
    For these reasons, EPA confirms that California's TRU amendments
raise no new issues with respect to the previously granted
authorization.
4. Within-the-Scope Confirmation
    For all the reasons set forth above, EPA can confirm that
California's amendments to its TRU ATCM are within the scope of the
existing authorization.

III. Decision

    The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California a
section 209(e) authorization to the Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. This includes the authority to determine whether amendments
to its regulations are within the scope of a prior authorization.
CARB's May 13, 2011 letter seeks confirmation from EPA that CARB's
amendments to its TRU ATCM regulations are within the scope of its
existing authorization. After evaluating CARB's amendments, CARB's
submissions, and the public comments, EPA confirms that California's
regulatory amendments meet the three criteria that EPA uses to
determine whether amendments by California are within the scope of
previous authorizations. First, EPA agrees with

CARB that the TRU amendments do not undermine California's
protectiveness determination from its previous authorization request.
Second, EPA agrees with CARB that California's TRU amendments do not
undermine EPA's prior determination regarding consistency with section
202(a) of the Act. Third, EPA agrees with CARB that California's TRU
amendments do not present any new issues which would affect the
previous authorization for California's TRU ATCM regulations.
Therefore, I confirm that CARB's TRU amendments are within the scope of
EPA's authorization for California's TRU ATCM regulations.
    My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also
manufacturers outside the State who must comply with California's
requirements in order to produce TRU systems for sale in California.
For this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of
national applicability 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
August 27, 2013. Judicial review of this final action may not be
obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section
307(b)(2) of the Act.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As with past authorization and waiver 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: June 19, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-15437 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 57 (Monday, March 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15258-15263]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05919]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80282; File No. SR-BX-2017-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Shorten the
Settlement Cycle From T+3 to T+2

March 21, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 9, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. On March 13, 2017, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1.\3\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes to capitalize the
letter ``d'' in the word ``department'' in the proposed revisions to
Rule 11140(b)(1), as set forth in Exhibit 5 to the filing, to
conform to the Exchange's current rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules 11140 (Transactions in
Securities ``Ex-Dividend,'' ``Ex-Rights'' or ``Ex-Warrants''), 11150
(Transactions ``Ex-Interest'' in Bonds Which Are Dealt in ``Flat''),
11210 (Sent by Each Party), 11320 (Dates of Delivery), 11620
(Computation of Interest), and IM-11810 (Sample Buy-In Forms), to
conform to the Commission's proposed amendment to SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) to
shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer
transactions from three business days after the trade date (``T+3'') to
two business days after the trade date (``T+2'') and the industry-led
initiative to shorten the settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78962 (September 28,
2016), 81 FR 69240 (October 5, 2016) (Amendment to Securities
Transaction Settlement Cycle) (File No. S7-22-16) (``SEC Proposing
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
SEC Proposing Release
    On September 28, 2016, the Commission proposed amending SEA Rule
15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle for most broker-
dealer transactions from T+3 to T+2 on the basis that the shorter
settlement cycle would reduce the risks that arise from the value and
number of unsettled securities transactions prior to the completion of
settlement, including credit, market, and liquidity risk directly faced
by U.S. market participants.\5\ The proposed rule amendment was
published for comment in the Federal Register on October 5, 2016.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Commission Press Release 2016-
200: ``SEC Proposes Rule Amendment to Expedite Process for Settling
Securities Transactions'' (September 28, 2016).
    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 1995, the standard U.S. trade settlement cycle for equities,
municipal and corporate bonds, and unit investment trusts, and
financial instruments composed of these products was shortened from
five business days after the trade date (``T+5'') to T+3.\7\
Accordingly, BX and other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs'')
amended their respective rules to conform to the T+3 settlement
cycle.\8\ Since that time, the SEC and the financial services industry
have continued to explore the idea of shortening the settlement cycle
even further.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In 1993, the Commission adopted SEA Rule 15c6-1 which became
effective in 1995. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 33023
(October 6, 1993), 58 FR 52891 (October 13, 1993) and 34952
(November 9, 1994), 59 FR 59137 (November 16, 1994). SEA Rule 15c6-
1(a) provides, in relevant part, that ``a broker or dealer shall not
effect or enter into a contract for the purchase or sale of a
security (other than an exempted security, government security,
municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or
commercial bills) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of
securities later than the third business day after the date of the
contract unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the
time of the transaction.'' 17 CFR 240.15c6-1(a). Although not
covered by SEA Rule 15c6-1, in 1995, the Commission approved the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's rule change requiring
transactions in municipal securities to settle by T+3. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35427 (February 28, 1995), 60 FR
12798 (March 8, 1995) (Order Approving File No. SR-MSRB-94-10).
    \8\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35507 (March
17, 1995), 60 FR15616 (March 24, 1995) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-94-56); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35506 (March 17,
1995), 60 FR 15618 (March 24, 1995) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NYSE-94-40); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35553 (March
31, 1995), 60 FR 18161 (April 10, 1995) (Order Approving File No.
SR-Amex-94-57).
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Industry Association (``SIA''), ``SIA
T+1 Business Case Final Report'' (July 2000); Concept Release:
Securities Transactions Settlement, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 49405 (March 11, 2004), 69 FR 12922 (March 18, 2004); and
Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, ``Proposal to Launch a New
Cost-Benefit Analysis on Shortening the Settlement Cycle'' (December
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2014, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
(``DTCC'') published its formal recommendation to shorten the standard
U.S. trade settlement cycle to T+2 and announced that it would partner
with market participants and industry organizations to devise the
necessary approach and timelines to achieve T+2.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See DTCC, ``DTCC Recommends Shortening the U.S. Trade
Settlement Cycle'' (April 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to improve the overall efficiency of the U.S.
settlement system by reducing the attendant risks in T+3 settlement of
securities transactions, and to align U.S. markets with other major
global markets that have already moved to T+2, DTCC, in collaboration
with the financial services industry, formed an Industry Steering
Committee (``ISC'') and an industry working group and sub-working
groups to facilitate the move to T+2.\11\ In June 2015, the ISC
published a White Paper outlining the activities and proposed time
frames that would be required to move to T+2 in the U.S.\12\
Concurrently, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
(``SIFMA'') and the Investment Company Institute (``ICI'') jointly
submitted a letter to SEC Chair White, expressing support of the
financial services industry's efforts to shorten the settlement cycle
and identifying SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) and several SRO rules that they
believed would require amendments for an effective transition to
T+2.\13\ In March 2016, the ISC announced the industry target date of
September 5, 2017 for the transition to a T+2 settlement cycle to
occur.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ISC includes, among other participants, DTCC, the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
Investment Company Institute.
    \12\ See ``Shortening the Settlement Cycle: The Move to T+2''
(June 18, 2015).
    \13\ See Letter from ICI and SIFMA to Mary Jo White, Chair, SEC,
dated June 18, 2015. See also Letter from Mary Jo White, Chair to
Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President and CEO, SIFMA, and Paul Schott
Stevens, President and CEO, ICI, dated September 16, 2015
(expressing her strong support for industry efforts to shorten the
trade settlement cycle to T+2 and commitment to developing a
proposal to amend SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement
no later than T+2).
    \14\ See ISC Media Alert: ``US T+2 ISC Recommends Move to
Shorter Settlement Cycle On September 5, 2017'' (March 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    In light of the SEC Proposing Release that would amend SEA Rule
15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement no later than T+2 and similar
proposals from other SROs,\15\ BX is proposing changes to its rules
pertaining to securities settlement by, among other things, amending
the definition of ``standard'' settlement as occurring on T+2. SEA Rule
15c6-1(a) currently establishes ``standard'' settlement as occurring no
later than T+3 for all securities, other than an exempt security,
government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers'
acceptances, or commercial bills.\16\ BX is proposing changes to rules
pertaining to securities settlement to support the industry-led
initiative to shorten the standard settlement cycle to two business
days. Most of the rules that BX has identified for these changes are
successors to provisions under the legacy NASD Rules of Fair Practice
and NASD Uniform Practice Code (``UPC'') that were amended when the
Commission adopted SEA Rule 15c6-1(a), which established T+3 as the
standard settlement cycle.\17\ As such, BX is proposing to amend BX
Rules 11140 (Transactions in Securities ``Ex-

Dividend,'' ``Ex-Rights'' or ``Ex-Warrants''), 11150 (Transactions
``Ex- Interest'' in Bonds Which Are Dealt in ``Flat''), 11320 (Dates of
Delivery), and 11620 (Computation of Interest). In addition, BX is
proposing to amend BX Rules 11210 (Sent by Each Party) and IM-11810
(Sample Buy-In Forms) to conform provisions, where appropriate, to the
T+2 settlement cycle.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77744 (April
29, 2016), 81 FR 26851 (May 4, 2016) (Order Approving File No. SR-
MSRB-2016-04).
    \16\ See supra note 7.
    \17\ The legacy NASD rules that were changed to conform to the
move from T+5 to T+3 included Section 26 (Investment Companies) of
the Rules of Fair Practice, and Section 5 (Transactions in
Securities ``Ex-Dividend,'' ``Ex-Rights'' or ``Ex- Warrants''),
Section 6 (Transactions ``Ex-Interest'' in Bonds Which Are Dealt in
``Flat''), Section 12 (Dates of Delivery), Section 46 (Computation
of Interest) and Section 64 (Acceptance and Settlement of COD
Orders) of the UPC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35507
(March 17, 1995), 60 FR 15616 (March 24, 1995) (Order Approving File
No. SR-NASD-94-56). See also Notice to Members 95-36 (May 1995)
(enumerating the various sections under the NASD Rules of Fair
Practice and UPC that were amended to implement T+3 settlement for
securities transactions).
    \18\ BX Rules 11210 and IM-11810 are successors to legacy NASD
UPC Section 9 (Sent by Each Party) and 59 (``Buying-in''),
respectively, which remained unchanged during the transition from
T+5 to T+3. See supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The details of the proposed rule change are described below.
(1) BX Rule 11140 (Transactions in Securities ``Ex-Dividend,'' ``Ex-
Rights'' or ``Ex-Warrants'')
    Rule 11140(b)(1) provides that for dividends or distributions, and
the issuance or distribution of warrants, that are less than 25 percent
of the value of the subject security, if definitive information is
received sufficiently in advance of the record date, the date
designated as the ``ex-dividend date'' shall be the second business day
preceding the record date if the record date falls on a business day,
or the third business day preceding the record date if the record date
falls on a day designated by Exchange's Regulation Department \19\ as a
non-delivery date. BX is proposing to shorten the time frames in Rule
11140(b)(1) by one business day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) BX Rule 11150 (``Ex-Interest'' in Bonds Which Are Dealt in
``Flat'')
    Rule 11150(a) prescribes the manner for establishing ``ex-interest
dates'' for transactions in bonds or other similar evidences of
indebtedness which are traded ``flat.'' Such transactions are ``ex-
interest'' on the second business day preceding the record date if the
record date falls on a business day, on the third business day
preceding the record date if the record date falls on a day other than
a business day, or on the third business day preceding the date on
which an interest payment is to be made if no record date has been
fixed. BX is proposing to shorten the time frames in Rule 11150(a) by
one business day.
(3) BX Rule 11210 (Sent by Each Party)
    Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 11210 set forth the ``Don't Know''
(``DK'') voluntary procedures for using ``DK Notices'' or other forms
of notices, respectively. Depending upon the notice used, a confirming
member may follow the ``DK'' procedures when it sends a comparison or
confirmation of a trade (other than one that clears through the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') or other registered
clearing agency), but does not receive a comparison or confirmation or
a signed ``DK'' from the contra-member by the close of four business
days following the trade date of the transaction (``T+4''). The
procedures generally provide that after T+4, the confirming member
shall send a ``DK Notice'' (or similar notice) to the contra-member.
The contra-member then has four business days after receipt of the
confirming member's notice to either confirm or ``DK'' the transaction.
    BX is proposing to amend paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 11210 to
provide that the ``DK'' procedures may be used by the confirming member
if it does not receive a comparison or confirmation or signed ``DK''
from the contra-member by the close of one business day following the
trade date of the transaction, rather than the current T+4.\20\ In
addition, BX is proposing amendments to paragraphs (c)(2)(A), (c)(3),
and (d)(5) of Rule 11210 to adjust the time in which a contra-member
has to respond to a ``DK Notice'' (or similar notice) from four
business days after the contra-member's receipt of the notice to two
business days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As stated above, the time frames in Rule 11210 remained
unchanged during the transition from T+5 to T+3. In light of the
industry-led initiative to shorten the standard settlement cycle and
the SEC Proposing Release to amend SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) to establish
T+2 as the standard settlement for most broker dealer transactions,
the Exchange believes that the current time frames in Rule 11210 are
more protracted than necessary even in a T+3 environment and as
such, the Exchange is proposing to amend these time frames to
reflect more current industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) BX Rule 11320 (Dates of Delivery)
    Rule 11320 prescribes delivery dates for various transactions.
Paragraph (b) states that for a ``regular way'' transaction, delivery
must be made on, but not before, the third business day after the date
of the transaction. BX is proposing to amend Rule 11320(b) to change
the reference to third business day to second business day. Paragraph
(c) provides that in a ``seller's option'' transaction, delivery may be
made by the seller on any business day after the third business day
following the date of the transaction. BX is proposing to amend Rule
11320(c) to change the reference to third business day to second
business day.
(5) BX Rule 11620 (Computation of Interest)
    In the settlement of contracts in interest-paying securities other
than for cash, Rule 11620(a) requires the calculation of interest at
the rate specified in the security up to, but not including, the third
business day after the date of the transaction. The proposed amendment
would shorten the time frame to the second business day. In addition,
the proposed amendment would make non-substantive technical changes to
the title of paragraph (a).
(6) BX Rule IM-11810 (Sample Buy-In Forms)
    Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) sets forth the fail-to-deliver and liability
notice procedures where a securities contract is for warrants, rights,
convertible securities or other securities which have been called for
redemption; are due to expire by their terms; are the subject of a
tender or exchange offer; or are subject to other expiring events such
as a record date for the underlying security and the last day on which
the securities must be delivered or surrendered is the settlement date
of the contract or later.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Rule IM-11810(i) is the successor to legacy NASD UPC
Section 59(i) (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures).
When this provision was added to NASD's existing close-out
procedures in 1984, it was drafted to be similar to the liability
notice provisions adopted by the NSCC so that members that were also
participants in NSCC could use the same procedures for both ex-
clearing and NSCC cleared transactions, thereby simplifying members'
back office procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A), the receiving member delivers a
liability notice to the owing counterparty. The liability notice sets a
cutoff date for the delivery of the securities by the counterparty and
provides notice to the counterparty of the liability attendant to its
failure to deliver the securities in time. If the owing counterparty,
or delivering member, delivers the securities in response to the
liability notice, it has met its delivery obligation. If the delivering
member fails to deliver the securities on the expiration date, it will
be liable for any damages that may accrue thereby.
    Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) further provides that when both parties to a
contract are participants in a registered clearing agency that has an
automated liability notification service, transmission of the liability
notice must be accomplished through such system.\22\ When the parties
to a contract are not

both participants in a registered clearing agency that has an automated
liability notification service, such notice must be issued using
written or comparable electronic media having immediate receipt
capabilities not later than one business day prior to the latest time
and the date of the offer or other event in order to obtain the
protection provided by the Rule.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In 2007, NYSE Rule 180 was amended to require that when the
parties to a failed contract were both participants in a registered
clearing agency that had an automated service for notifying a
failing party of the liability that will be attendant to a failure
to deliver and the contract was to be settled through the facilities
of that registered clearing agency, the transmission of the
liability notification must be accomplished through the use of the
registered clearing agency's automated liability notification
system. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55132 (January 19,
2007), 72 FR 3896 (January 26, 2007) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NYSE-2006-57).
    \23\ While Rule IM-11810 has undergone amendments over the
years, the one-day time frame in paragraph (j) has remained
unchanged. The one-day time frame also appears in comparable
provisions of other SROs. See, e.g., NSCC Rules & Procedures,
Procedure X (Execution of Buy-Ins) (Effective August 10, 2016); NYSE
Rule 282.65 (Fail to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures). See
also infra note 31 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the proposed shortened settlement cycle, BX is proposing to
amend Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) in situations where both parties to a
contract are not participants of a registered clearing agency with an
automated notification service, by extending the time frame for
delivery of the liability notice. Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) would be
amended to provide that in such cases, the receiving member must send
the liability notice to the delivering member as soon as practicable
but not later than two hours prior to the cutoff time set forth in the
instructions on a specific offer or other event to obtain the
protection provided by the Rule. BX believes that extending the time
given to the receiving member to transmit liability notifications will
maintain the efficiency of the notification process while mitigating
the possible overuse of such notifications.
    Currently, BX understands that the identity of the counterparty, or
delivering member, becomes known to the receiving member by mid-day on
the business day after trade date (``T+1''), and by that time, the
receiving member will generally also know which transactions are
subject to an event identified in Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) that would
prompt the receiving member to issue a liability notice to the
delivering member. BX believes that the receiving member regularly
issues liability notices to the seller or other parties from which the
securities involved are due when the security is subject to an event
identified in Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) during the settlement cycle as a
way to mitigate the risk of a potential fail-to-deliver. In the current
T+3 settlement environment, the one business day time frame gives the
receiving member the requisite time needed to identify the parties
involved and undertake the liability notification process.
    However, BX believes that the move to a T+2 settlement environment
will create inefficiencies in the liability notification process under
Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) when both parties to a contract are not
participants in a registered clearing agency with an automated
notification service. The shorter settlement cycle, with the loss of
one business day, would not afford the receiving member sufficient time
to: (1) Ascertain that the securities are subject to an event listed in
Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) during the settlement cycle; (2) identify the
delivering member and other parties from which the securities involved
are due; and (3) determine the likelihood that such parties may fail to
deliver. Where the receiving member has sufficient time (e.g., one
business day after), it can transmit liability notices as needed to the
right parties. However, as a consequence of the shortened settlement
cycle, the receiving member would be compelled to issue liability
notices proactively to all potentially failing parties as a matter of
course to preserve its rights against such parties without the benefit
of knowing which transactions would actually necessitate the delivery
of such notice. This would create a significant increase in the volume
of liability notices members send and receive, many of which may be
unnecessary. Members would then have to manage this overabundance of
liability notices, increasing the possibility of errors, which would
adversely impact the efficiency of the process. Therefore, BX believes
its proposal to extend the time for the receiving member to deliver a
liability notice when the parties to a contract are not both
participants in a registered clearing agency with an automated
notification service would help alleviate the potential burden on the
liability notification process in a T+2 settlement environment.
Implementation
    BX will announce the operative date of the proposed rule change in
an Equity Regulatory Alert, which date would correspond with the
industry-led transition to a T+2 standard settlement, and the
compliance date of the proposed amendment to SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) that
the Commission may adopt, to require standard settlement no later than
T+2.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\25\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\26\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change supports the supports the industry-led initiative to shorten the
settlement cycle to two business days. Moreover, the proposed rule
change is consistent with the SEC's proposed amendment to SEA Rule
15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement no later than T+2. BX believes
that the proposed rule change will provide the regulatory certainty to
facilitate the industry-led move to a T+2 settlement cycle. As noted
herein, upon approval, BX will announce the operative date of the
proposed rule change in an Equity Regulatory Alert, which date would
correspond with the industry-led transition to a T+2 standard
settlement, and the compliance date of the Commission's proposed
amendment to SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) to require standard settlement no later
than T+2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change makes
changes to rules pertaining to securities settlement and is intended to
facilitate the implementation of the industry-led transition to a T+2
settlement cycle. Moreover, the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the SEC's proposed amendment to SEA Rule 15c6-1(a) to require
standard settlement no later than T+2. Accordingly, BX believes that
the proposed changes do not impose any burdens on the industry in
addition to those necessary to implement amendments to SEA Rule 15c6-
1(a) as described and enumerated in the SEC Proposing Release.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These conforming changes include changes to rules that specifically
establish the settlement cycle as well as rules that establish time
frames based on settlement dates, including for certain post-settlement
rights and obligations. BX believes that the proposed changes set forth
in the filing are necessary to

support a standard settlement cycle across the U.S. for secondary
market transactions in equities, corporate and municipal bonds, unit
investment trusts, and financial instruments composed of these
products, among other things.\28\ A standard U.S. settlement cycle for
such products is critical for the operation of fair and orderly
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A previous version of the proposed rule change was published for
comment in Equity Regulatory Alert 2016-4 on May 18, 2016. Two comments
were received in response to the Regulatory Alert.\29\ A copy of the
Regulatory Alert is attached as Exhibit 2a.\30\ Copies of the comment
letters received in response to the Regulatory Notice are attached as
Exhibits 2d and a list of comments is attached as Exhibit 2c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Letter from Martin A. Burns, Chief Industry Operations
Officer, Investment Company Institute to John Zecca, Senior Vice
President, Marketwatch dated June 8, 2016 (``ICI''); letter from
Thomas F. Price, Managing Director, Operations, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, to John Zecca, Senior Vice
President Market Watch dated June 8, 2016 (``SIFMA'').
    \30\ The Commission notes that the exhibits referred to are
attached to the filing and not to this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both of the letters received expressed support for the industry led
move to T+2 stating, among other benefits, that the move will align
U.S. markets with international markets that already work in the T+2
environment, improve the overall efficiency and liquidity of the
securities markets, and the stability of the financial system by
reducing counterparty risk and pro-cyclical and liquidity demands, and
decreasing clearing capital requirements. SIFMA also provided their
view on the proposed amendments to two rules under the BX Rule 11800
Series (Buying In).
BX Rule IM-11810(i)--Sample Buy-In Forms
    In its comment letter, SIFMA raised a concern with the one-day time
frame in Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A), asserting that the requirement for the
delivering member to deliver a liability notice to the receiving member
no later than one business day prior to the latest time and the date of
the offer or other event in order to obtain the protection provided by
the Rule may no longer be appropriate in a T+2 environment in some
situations such as where the delivery obligation is transferred to
another party as a result of continuous net settlement, settlements
outside of the NSCC, and settlements involving a third party that is
not a BX member firm. SIFMA noted that NYSE Rule 180 (Failure to
Deliver) includes a similar requirement for NYSE member firms that are
participants in a registered clearing agency to transmit liability
notification through an automated notification service and proposed
amending Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) to omit the reference to a notification
time frame, which would align with NYSE Rule 180.\31\ In the
alternative, SIFMA proposed amending Rule IM-11810(i)(1)(A) to require
that the liability notice be delivered in a ``reasonable amount of
time'' ahead of the settlement obligation in light of facts and
circumstances. SIFMA maintained that under either proposed amendment to
paragraph (j), the delivering member would be liable for any damages
caused by its failure to deliver in a timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See NYSE Rule 180 (Failure to Deliver) providing in part
that ``[w]hen the parties to a contract are both participants in a
registered clearing agency which has an automated service for
notifying a failing party of the liability that will be attendant to
a failure to deliver and that contract was to be settled through the
facilities of said registered clearing agency, the transmission of
the liability notification must be accomplished through use of said
automated notification service.'' BX notes that NYSE Rule 180 does
not address the transmission of the liability notification for
parties to a contract that are not both participants in a registered
clearing agency (or non-participants). The transmission of the
liability notification for non-participants is addressed under NYSE
Rule 282.65 (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures).
See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While BX did not initially propose amendments to Rule IM-11810 for
the T+2 initiative,\32\ in light of SIFMA's concern regarding Rule IM-
11810(i)(1)(A), BX is proposing to amend the Rule to provide that,
where both parties to a contract are not participants of a registered
clearing agency with an automated notification service, the receiving
member must send the liability notice to the delivering member as soon
as practicable but not later than two hours prior to the cutoff time
set forth in the instructions on a specific offer or other event to
obtain the protection provided by the Rule.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Equity Regulatory Alert 2016-4.
    \33\ BX expects similar amendments to other comparable SRO
provisions in NYSE Rule 282.65 (Fail to Deliver and Liability Notice
Procedures) and FINRA Rule 11810 (Buying-in), and NSCC Rules &
Procedures, Procedure X (Execution of Buy-Ins) to address SIFMA's
concern about the one-day notification time frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for

inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-013, and should be
submitted on or before April 17, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05919 Filed 3-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Meeting Notes for Docket– RCRB and ASTSWMO HW Recycling Task Force

10/5/2005

On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, OSW’s team working on the Definition of
Solid Waste (DSW or ABR) rulemaking met with the Association of State
and Tribal Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Hazardous Waste
Task Force from 12:30 pm to 5:00 pm at the Hall of the States in
Washington, D.C. to discuss the status and main issues of the current
rulemaking. In attendance:

Robert Dellinger	OSW

Charlotte Mooney	OSW

David Fagan		OSW

Amy Lile		OSW

Marilyn Goode	OSW

Marybeth Sheridan	OSW

Kathy Blanton		OSW

Tracy Atagi		OSW

Mary Andrews	OECA

Rob Morrison		Missouri

Jim McNamara	Georgia

Karen Hale		Ohio

Rick Volpel		Oregon

Dennis Bowhay 	Washington

Introduction and Status Updates – Charlotte		approx. 45 minutes

Recycling Analyses – Dave Fagan			approx. 45 minutes

State Perspectives Discussion – Tracy (facilitator)	approx. 60 minutes

Legitimacy Criteria – Marybeth and Mary		approx. 60 minutes

Next Steps/ General Discussion – Tracy (facilitator)	approx. 45
minutes

Update on other Recycling Rules – Charlotte		approx. 15 minutes

EPA met with ASTSWMO and discussed the current status of the rulemaking
and of several ongoing recycling studies examining common recycling
problems, the economics of the recycling industry, and good practices.
This was followed by discussions about what conditions would be
appropriate for an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for
materials being legitimately recycled and a discussion of the states’
experiences with the existing legitimacy guidance and their ideas on the
proposed criteria.

ASTSWMO agreed at the end to write a letter to EPA documenting their
positions on the topics discussed at the meeting.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35692-35693]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-22]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Colored Federal Airway Red-1 (R-1)
Vicinity of King Salmon, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke the Colored Federal airway Red-
1 (R-1) in the vicinity of King Salmon, AK, due to the airway no longer
being utilized by pilots as the overlaying United States Area
Navigation (RNAV) route, T-230, provides better navigation capability
with lower minimum enroute altitudes (MEA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No 22-AAL-22 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Acevedo, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-22) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0765; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-22.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The Alaska aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the
FAA to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
the dependency on Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) navigational aids. The
advances in technology have allowed for pilots to utilize alternate
satellite-based navigation methods that are more precise for navigating
the tough Alaska terrain.
    During a recent study conducted by the FAA for a one year period,
the FAA analyzed the utilization of the Colored Federal airway R-1 and
determined it is not being utilized. Pilots prefer to use the RNAV T-
route, T-230, to navigate the same airspace area. The RNAV route T-230
has been in place for many years and runs parallel to R-1 from the King
Salmon, AK, VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) to the St Paul Island, AK,
NDB/Distance Measuring Equipment (NDB/DME). The satellite-based T-230
offers a lower flying altitude and more precise navigation than the
NDB-based airway R-1. A radar study of R-1 usage for the past 12 months
revealed no aircraft flew this airway. Air traffic control verified
this study. The FAA, therefore, concluded that the use of the R-1
airway was abandoned. As such, this proposal would result in the
removal of the Colored Federal airway R-1, since the air traffic
service provided by this airway is no longer utilized.
    To overcome the loss of the R-1 airway, alternate routings for non-
global positioning system (GPS)-equipped aircraft are available from
the King Salmon, AK, VOR to the St Paul Island, AK, NDB/DME using VOR
Federal airway V-321, and the Colored Federal airway G-10 via the Cape
Newenham NDB/DME.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke
Colored Federal airway R-1, due to the airway no longer being utilized
by pilots as the overlaying RNAVroute, T-230, provides better
navigation capability with lower MEA.
    The proposed airway amendment is described below.
    R-1: R-1 currently extends between the St Paul Island, AK, NDB/DME
and the Chinook AK, NDB. The FAA proposes to revoke the route in its
entirety.
    Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(b) of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Colored
Federal airway listed in this document would be removed subsequently
from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6009(a) Colored Federal Airways.

* * * * *

R-1 [Remove]

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 6, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-12588 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55190-55191]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19786]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9951-02--Region 1]

Program Requirement Revisions Related to the Public Water System
Supervision Programs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State
of Rhode Island and the State of Vermont

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
the State of Rhode Island and the State of Vermont are in the process
of revising their respective approved Public Water System Supervision
(PWSS) programs to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA).
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has adopted drinking water
regulations for the Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on
November 8, 2006, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(71 FR 654) promulgated on January 5, 2006, and the Stage 2
Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated
on January 4, 2006. After review of the submitted documentation, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Ground Water Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal
regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Massachusetts' PWSS
program revision for these rules.
    The State of Rhode Island has adopted drinking water regulations
for the Lead and Copper Rule (56 FR 26460-26564) promulgated on June 7,
1991, the Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule (65 FR 1950) promulgated
on January 12, 2000, the Lead and Copper Short-Term Revisions Rule (72
FR 57782) promulgated on October 10, 2007, the Ground Water Rule (71 FR
65574) promulgated on November 8, 2006, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4,
2006. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined
that the State of Rhode Island's Lead and Copper Rule, Lead and Copper
Short-Term Revisions Rule, Lead and Copper Minor Revisions Rule, Ground
Water Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations, with
the understanding that the state regulations include a small number of
typographical errors or other very minor, non-substantive differences
that the state has agreed to correct. These issues are discussed in
further detail in EPA's administrative record. Therefore, EPA intends
to approve Rhode Island's PWSS program revision for these rules.
    The State of Vermont has adopted drinking water regulations for the
Ground Water Rule (71 FR 65574) promulgated on November 6, 2008, the
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (71 FR 654)
promulgated on January 5, 2006, and the Stage 2 Disinfectant and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388) promulgated on January 4,
2006. After review of the submitted documentation, EPA has determined
that the State of Vermont's Ground Water Rule, Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule, and Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule are no less stringent than the corresponding federal
regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve Vermont's PWSS program
revision for these rules.

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing for any of
the above EPA determinations. A request for a public hearing must be
submitted within thirty (30) days of this Federal Register publication
date to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below.
Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the
Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public
hearing is made by this date, a public hearing will be held. If no
timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his/her own
motion, this determination shall become final and effective 30 days
after the publication of this Federal Register Notice. Any request for
a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) The name,
address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other
entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting
person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination; (3)
information that the requesting person intends to submit at such
hearing; and (4) the signature of the individual making the request, or
if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity,
the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following office(s):

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912.
For documents specific to that State: Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply, 1 Winter Street,
6th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
Rhode Island Department of Public Health, Division of Drinking Water
Quality, 3 Capitol Hill, Providence, RI 02908-5097.
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Supply
Division, Agency of Natural Resources, 103 South Main Street, Old
Pantry Building, Waterbury, VT 05671-0403.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Jeri Weiss, U.S. EPA--New England, Office of
Ecosystem Protection (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

    Authority: Section 1401 (42 U.S.C. 300f) and Section 1413 (42
U.S.C. 300g-2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996),
and (40 CFR 142.10) of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.

     Dated: August 11, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA--New England.
[FR Doc. 2016-19786 Filed 8-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23323]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0063; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-94]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rumford, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 9185) that establishes Class E
Airspace at Rumford, ME, to support a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (LAP)
that has been developed for medical flight operations into the Rumford
Community Hospital.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, System Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9185),
Docket No. FAA-2008-0063; Airspace Docket No. 08-ANE-94. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
June 5, 2008. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 7, 2008.
Kathy Swann,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-9037 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M