[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39607-39611]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14279]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[EPA-R09-OAR-2004-0091; FRL-9947-72-Region 9]

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations; Consistency Update for
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
update a portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (``OCS'') Air
Regulations. Requirements applying to OCS sources located within 25
miles of States' seaward boundaries must be updated periodically to
remain consistent with the requirements of the corresponding onshore
area (``COA''), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
as amended in 1990 (``the Act''). The portion of the OCS air
regulations that is being updated pertains to the requirements for OCS
sources for which the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(``Ventura County APCD'' or ``District'') is the designated COA. The
intended effect of approving the OCS requirements for the Ventura
County APCD is to regulate emissions from OCS sources in accordance
with the requirements onshore. The changes to the existing requirements
discussed in this document are proposed to be incorporated by reference
into the Code of Federal Regulations and listed in the appendix to the
OCS air regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2004-0091 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air-
4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
    A. Why is the EPA taking this action?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What criteria were used to evaluate rules submitted to update
40 CFR part 55?
    B. What requirements were submitted to update 40 CFR part 55?
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

A. Why is the EPA taking this action?

    On September 4, 1992, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 55,\1\ which
established requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources in
order to attain and maintain federal and state ambient air quality
standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of title I of the
Act. Part 55 applies to all OCS sources offshore of the States except
those located in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.
Section 328 of the Act requires that for such sources located within 25
miles of a State's seaward boundary, the requirements shall be the same
as would be applicable if the sources were located in the COA. Because
the OCS requirements are based on onshore requirements, and onshore
requirements may change, section 328(a)(1) requires that the EPA update
the OCS requirements as necessary to maintain consistency with onshore
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and the preamble to the final rule
promulgated September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further background
and information on the OCS regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 55.12 of the OCS rule, consistency reviews will
occur (1) at least annually; (2) upon receipt of a Notice of Intent
under section 55.4; or (3) when a state or local agency submits a rule
to the EPA to be considered for incorporation by reference in part 55.
This proposed action is being taken in response to the submittal of
requirements by the Ventura County APCD on January 8, 2016. Public
comments received in writing within 30 days of publication of this
document will be considered by the EPA before publishing a final rule.
Section 328(a) of the Act requires that the EPA establish requirements
to control air pollution from OCS sources located within 25 miles of
States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore requirements.
To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA must incorporate
applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist onshore. This
limits the EPA's flexibility in deciding which requirements will be
incorporated into part 55 and prevents the EPA from making substantive
changes to the requirements it incorporates. As a result, the EPA may
be incorporating rules into part 55 that do not conform to all of the
EPA's state implementation plan (SIP) guidance or certain requirements
of the Act. Consistency updates may result in the inclusion of state or
local rules or regulations into part 55, even though the same rules may
ultimately be disapproved for inclusion as part of the SIP. Inclusion
in the OCS rule does not imply that a rule meets the requirements of
the Act for SIP approval, nor does it imply that the rule will be
approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What criteria were used to evaluate rules submitted to update 40 CFR
part 55?

    In updating 40 CFR part 55, the EPA reviewed the rules submitted
for inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they are rationally related to
the attainment or maintenance of federal or state ambient air quality
standards or part C of title I of the Act, that they are not designed
expressly to prevent exploration and development of the OCS and that
they are applicable to OCS sources. 40 CFR 55.1. The EPA has also
evaluated the rules to ensure they are not arbitrary or capricious. 40
CFR 55.12(e). The EPA has excluded administrative and procedural rules
\2\ that regulate toxics, which are not related to the attainment and
maintenance of federal and state ambient air quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Each COA which has been delegated the authority to implement
and enforce part 55 will use its administrative and procedural rules
as onshore. However, in those instances where the EPA has not
delegated authority to implement and enforce part 55, the EPA will
use its own administrative and procedural requirements to implement
the substantive requirements. 40 CFR 55.14(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What requirements were submitted to update 40 CFR part 55?

    After review of the requirements submitted by the Ventura County
APCD against the criteria set forth above and in 40 CFR part 55, the
EPA is proposing to make the following Ventura County APCD requirements
applicable to OCS sources. Earlier versions of these District rules are
currently implemented on the OCS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Adoption or
          Rule No.                       Name              amended date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42.........................  Permit Fees................        04/14/15
74.15.1....................  Boilers, steam Generators,         06/23/15
                              and Process Heaters.
26.13......................  New Source Review-                 11/10/15
                              Prevention of Significant
                              Deterioration (PSD).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the Ventura County APCD rules described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to establish
requirements to control air pollution from OCS sources located within
25 miles of States' seaward boundaries that are the same as onshore air
control requirements. To comply with this statutory mandate, the EPA
must incorporate applicable onshore rules into part 55 as they exist
onshore. 42 U.S.C. 7627(a)(1); 40 CFR 55.12. Thus, in promulgating OCS
consistency updates, the EPA's role is to maintain consistency between
OCS regulations and the regulations of onshore areas, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action
simply updates the existing OCS requirements to make them consistent
with requirements onshore, without the exercise of any policy
discretion by the EPA. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor does it impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt
tribal law.
    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved the information
collection requirements contained in 40 CFR part 55 and, by extension,
this update to the rules, and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0249. Notice of OMB's approval of the EPA Information Collection
Request (``ICR'') No. 1601.07 was published in the Federal Register on
February 17, 2009 (74 FR 7432). The approval expired January 31, 2012.
As the EPA previously indicated (70 FR 65897-65898 (November 1, 2005)),
the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for collection of
information under 40 CFR part 55 is estimated to average 549 hours per
response, using the definition of burden provided in 44 U.S.C. 3502(2).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 25, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Outer
Continental Shelf, Ozone, Particulate matter, Permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 3, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 55, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 55--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AIR REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as amended by Public Law 101-549.

0
2. Section 55.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(H) to read
as follows:

Sec.  55.14  Requirements that apply to OCS sources located within 25
miles of States' seaward boundaries, by State.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (H) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Requirements
Applicable to OCS Sources.
* * * * *
0
3. Appendix A to part 55 is amended by revising under the heading
``California'' paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 55--Listing of State and Local Requirements
Incorporated by Reference Into Part 55, by State

* * * * *

California

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) The following requirements are contained in Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District Requirements Applicable to OCS
Sources:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2............................  Definitions (Adopted 04/12/11).
Rule 5............................  Effective Date (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 6............................  Severability (Adopted 11/21/78).
Rule 7............................  Boundaries (Adopted 06/14/77).
Rule 10...........................  Permits Required (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 11...........................  Definition for Regulation II
                                     (Adopted 03/14/06).
Rule 12...........................  Applications for Permits (Adopted 06/
                                     13/95).
Rule 13...........................  Action on Applications for an
                                     Authority To Construct (Adopted 06/
                                     13/95).
Rule 14...........................  Action on Applications for a Permit
                                     To Operate (Adopted 06/13/95).
Rule 15.1.........................  Sampling and Testing Facilities
                                     (Adopted 10/12/93).
Rule 16...........................  BACT Certification (Adopted 06/13/
                                     95).
Rule 19...........................  Posting of Permits (Adopted 05/23/
                                     72).
Rule 20...........................  Transfer of Permit (Adopted 05/23/
                                     72).
Rule 23...........................  Exemptions From Permits (Adopted 04/
                                     12/11).

Rule 24...........................  Source Recordkeeping, Reporting, and
                                     Emission Statements (Adopted 09/15/
                                     92).
Rule 26...........................  New Source Review--General (Adopted
                                     03/14/06).
Rule 26.1.........................  New Source Review--Definitions
                                     (Adopted 11/14/06).
Rule 26.2.........................  New Source Review--Requirements
                                     (Adopted 05/14/02).
Rule 26.3.........................  New Source Review--Exemptions
                                     (Adopted 3/14/06).
Rule 26.6.........................  New Source Review--Calculations
                                     (Adopted 3/14/06).
Rule 26.8.........................  New Source Review--Permit To Operate
                                     (Adopted 10/22/91).
Rule 26.10........................  New Source Review--Prevention of
                                     Significant Deterioration
                                     (PSD)(Repealed 06/28/11).
Rule 26.11........................  New Source Review--ERC Evaluation at
                                     Time of Use (Adopted 05/14/02).
Rule 26.12........................  Federal Major Modifications (Adopted
                                     06/27/06).
Rule 26.13........................  New Source Review--Prevention of
                                     Significant Deterioration (PSD)
                                     (Adopted 11/10/15).
Rule 28...........................  Revocation of Permits (Adopted 07/18/
                                     72).
Rule 29...........................  Conditions on Permits (Adopted 03/14/
                                     06).
Rule 30...........................  Permit Renewal (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 32...........................  Breakdown Conditions: Emergency
                                     Variances, A., B.1., and D. only.
                                     (Adopted 02/20/79).
Rule 33...........................  Part 70 Permits--General (Adopted 04/
                                     12/11).
Rule 33.1.........................  Part 70 Permits--Definitions
                                     (Adopted 04/12/11).
Rule 33.2.........................  Part 70 Permits--Application
                                     Contents (Adopted 04/10/01).
Rule 33.3.........................  Part 70 Permits--Permit Content
                                     (Adopted 09/12/06).
Rule 33.4.........................  Part 70 Permits--Operational
                                     Flexibility (Adopted 04/10/01).
Rule 33.5.........................  Part 70 Permits--Timeframes for
                                     Applications, Review and Issuance
                                     (Adopted 10/12/93).
Rule 33.6.........................   Part 70 Permits--Permit Term and
                                     Permit Reissuance (Adopted 10/12/
                                     93).
Rule 33.7.........................   Part 70 Permits--Notification
                                     (Adopted 04/10/01).
Rule 33.8.........................   Part 70 Permits--Reopening of
                                     Permits (Adopted 10/12/93).
Rule 33.9.........................   Part 70 Permits--Compliance
                                     Provisions (Adopted 04/10/01).
Rule 33.10........................   Part 70 Permits--General Part 70
                                     Permits (Adopted 10/12/93).
Rule 34...........................   Acid Deposition Control (Adopted 03/
                                     14/95).
Rule 35...........................   Elective Emission Limits (Adopted
                                     04/12/11).
Rule 36...........................   New Source Review--Hazardous Air
                                     Pollutants (Adopted 10/06/98).
Rule 42...........................   Permit Fees (Adopted 04/14/15).
Rule 44...........................   Exemption Evaluation Fee (Adopted
                                     04/08/08).
Rule 45...........................   Plan Fees (Adopted 06/19/90).
Rule 45.2.........................   Asbestos Removal Fees (Adopted 08/
                                     04/92).
Rule 47...........................   Source Test, Emission Monitor, and
                                     Call-Back Fees (Adopted 06/22/99).
Rule 50...........................   Opacity (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 52...........................   Particulate Matter--Concentration
                                     (Grain Loading) (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 53...........................   Particulate Matter--Process Weight
                                     (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 54...........................   Sulfur Compounds (Adopted 06/14/
                                     94).
Rule 56...........................   Open Burning (Adopted 11/11/03).
Rule 57...........................   Incinerators (Adopted 01/11/05).
Rule 57.1.........................   Particulate Matter Emissions From
                                     Fuel Burning Equipment (Adopted 01/
                                     11/05).
Rule 62.7.........................   Asbestos--Demolition and Renovation
                                     (Adopted 09/01/92).
Rule 63...........................   Separation and Combination of
                                     Emissions (Adopted 11/21/78).
Rule 64...........................   Sulfur Content of Fuels (Adopted 04/
                                     13/99).
Rule 67...........................   Vacuum Producing Devices (Adopted
                                     07/05/83).
Rule 68...........................   Carbon Monoxide (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 71...........................   Crude Oil and Reactive Organic
                                     Compound Liquids (Adopted 12/13/
                                     94).
Rule 71.1.........................   Crude Oil Production and Separation
                                     (Adopted 06/16/92).
Rule 71.2.........................   Storage of Reactive Organic
                                     Compound Liquids (Adopted 09/26/
                                     89).
Rule 71.3.........................   Transfer of Reactive Organic
                                     Compound Liquids (Adopted 06/16/
                                     92).
Rule 71.4.........................   Petroleum Sumps, Pits, Ponds, and
                                     Well Cellars (Adopted 06/08/93).
Rule 71.5.........................   Glycol Dehydrators (Adopted 12/13/
                                     94).
Rule 72...........................   New Source Performance Standards
                                     (NSPS)(Adopted 09/9/08).
Rule 73...........................   National Emission Standards for
                                     Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS
                                     (Adopted 09/9/08).
Rule 74...........................   Specific Source Standards (Adopted
                                     07/06/76).
Rule 74.1.........................   Abrasive Blasting (Adopted 11/12/
                                     91).
Rule 74.2.........................   Architectural Coatings (Adopted 01/
                                     12/10).
Rule 74.6.........................   Surface Cleaning and Degreasing
                                     (Adopted 11/11/03--effective 07/01/
                                     04).
Rule 74.6.1.......................   Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers
                                     (Adopted 11/11/03--effective 07/01/
                                     04).
Rule 74.7.........................   Fugitive Emissions of Reactive
                                     Organic Compounds at Petroleum
                                     Refineries and Chemical Plants
                                     (Adopted 10/10/95).
Rule 74.8.........................   Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                     Waste-Water Separators and Process
                                     Turnarounds (Adopted 07/05/83).
Rule 74.9.........................   Stationary Internal Combustion
                                     Engines (Adopted 11/08/05).
Rule 74.10........................   Components at Crude Oil Production
                                     Facilities and Natural Gas
                                     Production and Processing
                                     Facilities (Adopted 03/10/98).
Rule 74.11........................   Natural Gas-Fired Residential Water
                                     Heaters--Control of NOX (Adopted 05/
                                     11/10).
Rule 74.11.1......................   Large Water Heaters and Small
                                     Boilers (Adopted 09/14/99).
Rule 74.12........................   Surface Coating of Metal Parts and
                                     Products (Adopted 04/08/08).
Rule 74.15........................   Boilers, Steam Generators and
                                     Process Heaters (5MMBTUs and
                                     greater) (Adopted 11/08/94).
Rule 74.15.1......................   Boilers, Steam Generators and
                                     Process Heaters (1 to 5 MMBTUs)
                                     (Adopted 06/23/15).
Rule 74.16........................   Oil Field Drilling Operations
                                     (Adopted 01/08/91).
Rule 74.20........................   Adhesives and Sealants (Adopted 01/
                                     11/05).
Rule 74.23........................   Stationary Gas Turbines (Adopted 1/
                                     08/02).
Rule 74.24........................   Marine Coating Operations (Adopted
                                     11/11/03).
Rule 74.24.1......................   Pleasure Craft Coating and
                                     Commercial Boatyard Operations
                                     (Adopted 01/08/02).

Rule 74.26........................   Crude Oil Storage Tank Degassing
                                     Operations (Adopted 11/08/94).
Rule 74.27........................   Gasoline and ROC Liquid Storage
                                     Tank Degassing Operations (Adopted
                                     11/08/94).
Rule 74.28........................   Asphalt Roofing Operations (Adopted
                                     05/10/94).
Rule 74.30........................   Wood Products Coatings (Adopted 06/
                                     27/06).
Rule 75...........................   Circumvention (Adopted 11/27/78).
Rule 101..........................   Sampling and Testing Facilities
                                     (Adopted 05/23/72).
Rule 102..........................   Source Tests (Adopted 04/13/04).
Rule 103..........................   Continuous Monitoring Systems
                                     (Adopted 02/09/99).
Rule 154..........................   Stage 1 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/
                                     17/91).
Rule 155..........................   Stage 2 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/
                                     17/91).
Rule 156..........................   Stage 3 Episode Actions (Adopted 09/
                                     17/91).
Rule 158..........................   Source Abatement Plans (Adopted 09/
                                     17/91).
Rule 159..........................   Traffic Abatement Procedures
                                     (Adopted 09/17/91).
Rule 220..........................   General Conformity (Adopted 05/09/
                                     95).
Rule 230..........................   Notice To Comply (Adopted 9/9/08).

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-14279 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4294-4295]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01560]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9941-73-ORD]

Office of Research and Development; Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of a New Equivalent
Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for
monitoring ambient air quality.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, one new
reference method for measuring concentrations of PM10 in the
ambient air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Vanderpool, Exposure Methods
and Measurement Division (MD-D205-03), National Exposure Research
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR
part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set
forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring methods that are determined to meet
specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either
reference or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting
their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for
determining compliance with the NAAQSs. A list of all reference or
equivalent methods that have been previously designated by EPA may be
found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
    The EPA hereby announces the designation of one new reference
method for measuring concentrations of a new equivalent method for
measuring pollutant concentrations of PM10 in the ambient
air. These designations are made under the provisions of 40 CFR part
53, as amended on August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54326-54341).
    The new equivalent method for PM10 is an automated
monitoring method utilizing a measurement principle based on sample
collection by filtration and analysis by beta-ray attenuation and is
identified as follows:
    EQPM-1215-226, ``Met One Instruments, Inc. E-BAM + Beta Attenuation
Mass Monitor - PM10 FEM Configuration,'' configured for 24
1-hour average measurements of PM10 by beta attenuation,
using a glass fiber filter tape roll (460130 or 460180), a sample flow
rate of 16.67 liters/min, with the standard (BX-802) EPA
PM10 inlet (meeting 40 CFR 50 Appendix L specifications) and
equipped with 9250 ambient temperature sensor. Instrument must be
operated in accordance with the E-BAM + Particulate Monitor operation
manual, revision 1 or later. This designation applies to
PM10 measurements only.
    The application for equivalent method determination for the
PM10 method was received by the Office of Research and
Development on November 19, 2015. This monitor is commercially
available from the applicant, Met One Instruments, Inc., 1600
Washington Blvd., Grants Pass, OR 97526.

    Representative test monitors have been tested in accordance with
the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended
on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the results of those tests and
other information submitted by the applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with Part 53, that these methods should be designated as a
reference or equivalent method.
    As a designated equivalent method, this method is acceptable for
use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements
of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes,
the method must be used in strict accordance with the operation or
instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any
specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational
settings) specified in the designated method description (see the
identification of the method above).
    Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the
guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ``Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,''
EPA/600/R-94/038a and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Program,'' EPA-454/B-13-003, (both available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/qalist.html). Provisions concerning modification of such methods
by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by
Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.
    Consistent or repeated noncompliance with any of these conditions
should be reported to: Director, Exposure Methods and Measurements
Division (MD-E205-01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
    Designation of this equivalent method is intended to assist the
States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance
systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial
availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to
the applicant.

    Dated: January 19, 2016.
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta,
Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 2016-01560 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48350-48353]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20658]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84183; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a
Proposed Rule Change To Make Permanent the Retail Liquidity Program
Pilot, Which Is Set To Expire on December 31, 2018

September 18, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On June 4, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make
permanent the Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program Pilot (the
``Program''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 21, 2018.\3\ On July 31, 2018, the Commission
designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ The
Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83454 (June 15,
2018), 83 FR 28874 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83749, 83 FR 38393
(August 6, 2018). The Commission designated September 19, 2018, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to make permanent Exchange Rule 107C, which
sets forth the rules and procedures governing the Program. The Program
was adopted to create a new class of market participants called Retail
Liquidity Providers (``RLPs'') that would be able to provide potential
price improvement to retail order flow. To do so, an RLP submits a
Retail Price Improvement Order (``RPI''), which is a non-displayed
order that is priced at least $0.001 better than the best protected bid
(``PBB'') or best protected offer (``PBO'') (``PBBO''), as such terms
are defined in Regulation NMS, and that is identified as such.\6\ After
an RPI is submitted, the Exchange disseminates an indicator through its
proprietary data feeds or through the Consolidation Quotation System,
known as the Retail Liquidity Identifier, indicating that such interest
exists.\7\ The Retail Liquidity Identifier reflects the symbol for the
particular security and the side (buy or sell) of the RPI interest, but
does not include the price or size of the RPI interest. In response to
the Retail Liquidity Identifier, another class of market participants
created under the Program, known as Retail Member Organizations
(``RMOs''),\8\ may submit a Retail Order \9\ to interact with available
contra-side RPIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Rule 107C(a)(4).
    \7\ See NYSE Rule 107C(j).
    \8\ See NYSE Rule 107C(a)(2).
    \9\ See NYSE Rule 107C(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as an RMO, a member organization must conduct a retail
business or route retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.\10\
A member organization must submit the following to the Exchange for
approval: (i) An application form, (ii) supporting documentation, and
(iii) an attestation that substantially all orders sumibtted as retail
orders will qualify as such. The Program provides for an appeal process
for a disapproved applicant, and a withdraw process for RMOs. RMOs must
have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to assure that
they will only designate orders as Retail Orders if all requirements of
a Retail Order are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Conducting a retail business includes carrying retail
custsomer accounts on a fully disclosed basis. See NYSE Rule
107C(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify as an RLP, a member organization must submit an
application form and supporting documentation to the Exchange for
approval. A disapproved applicant may appeal or reapply 90 days after
the disapproval notice. RLPs may only enter RPI orders electronically
and directly into Exchange systems. In each of its assigned securities,
RLPs must maintain certain requirements to have RPI Orders that are
better than the PBB or PBO at least five percent of the trading day.
RLPs may enter RPI Orders in non-assigned securities without regard to
the five percent requirement.
    RMOs could be disqualified if they submit Retail Orders that do not
meet the requirements of Retail Orders. If disqualified, RMOs may
appeal and reapply. RLPs could lose their assigned securities or be
disqualified if they do not meet the five percent requirement for three
consecutive months. If disqualified, the RLP could appeal or reapply.
The Exchange has set up a Program Panel to review disapproval or
disqualification.
    Under the Program, there are three types of Retail Orders. A Type 1
Retail Order will interact only with available contra-side RPI Orders
and Mid-Point Liquidity Orders (``MPL Orders''). A Type 1 Retail Order
will not interact with other available contra-side interst or route to
away markets. The unexecuted portion of a Type 1 Retail Order will be
immediately cancelled. A Type 2 Retail Order will interact first with
available contra-side RPI Orders and MPL Orders. Any remaining portion
will be executed as a Regulation NMS-compliant immediate-or-cancel
order.\11\ A Type 3 Retail Order will interact first with contra-side
RPI Orders and MPL Orders. Any remaining portion will be executed as an
NYSE immediate-or-cancel order.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A Regulation NMS compliant immediate-or-cancel order will
be automatically executed against the displayed quotation up to its
full size and sweep the Exchange book without routing away. Portions
not executed will be immediately cancelled. See NYSE Rule
13(b)(2)(A).
    \12\ An NYSE immediate-or-cancel order will be automatically
executed against the displayed quotation up to its full size and
sweep the Exchange book, with portions routed to away markets if an
execution would trade through a protected quotation in compliance
with Regulation NMS. Portions not executed will be immediately
cancelled. See NYSE Rule 13(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program provides that RPI Orders will be ranked and allocated
according to price-time priority. The Program considers all eligible
RPI Orders and MPL Orders to determine the price to execute a Retail
Order. If there are only RPI Orders, then execution occurs at the price
level that completes the incoming order's execution. If there are only
MPL Orders, then a Retail Order will executes at the mid-point of the
PBBO. If both RPI and MPL Orders are present, the Exchange will
evaluate at the price level at which an incoming Retail Order will
execute in full (``clean up price''). If the clean up price is equal to
the mid-point of the PBBO, RPI Orders will receive priority over MPL
Orders, and Retail Orders will execute against both RPI and Mid-Point
Liquidity Orders at the midpoint. If the clean up price is worse than
the mid-point of the PBBO, a Retail Order will execute first with the
MPL Orders at the midpoint of the PBBO, and any remaining Retail Orders
will execute with the RPI Orders at the clean up price. If the clean up
price is better than the mid-point of the PBBO, then a Retail Order
will execute against RPI Orders at the clean up price and will ignore
the MPL Orders.

    A more detailed description of how the Program operates, including,
but not limited to, how a member organization may qualify and apply to
become a RMO; the requirements of RLPs; different types of Retail
Orders; and prioriy and order allocation of RPI orders is more fully
set forth in the Notice.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 28875-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2012, the Commission approved the Program on a pilot basis
(``RLP Approval Order'').\14\ As set forth in the RLP Approval Order,
the Commission approved the Program on a pilot basis to allow the
Exchange and market participants to gain valuable practical experience
with the Program during the pilot period, and to allow the Commission
to determine whether modifications to the Program were necessary or
appropriate prior to any Commission decision to approve the Program on
a permanent basis.\15\ Indeed, the Exchange has modified aspects of
Exchange Rule 107C on several occasions during the pilot period.\16\
Additionally, as part of the RLP Approval Order, the Exchange agreed to
provide the Commission with a significant amount of data to assist the
Commission's evaluation of the Program.\17\ Specifically, the Exchange
represented that it would ``produce data throughout the pilot, which
will include statistics about participation, the frequency and level of
price improvement provided by the Program, and any effects on the
broader market structure.'' \18\ The Commission expected the Exchange
to monitor the scope and operation of the Program and study the data
produced during that time with respect to such issues.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3,
2012), 77 FR 40673, 74 (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55). In
addition to approving the Program on a pilot basis, the Commission
granted the Exchange's request for exemptive relief from Rule 612 of
Regulation NMS, 17 CFR 242.612 (``Sub-Penny Rule''), which among
other things prohibits a national securities exchange from accepting
or ranking orders priced greater than $1.00 per share in an
increment smaller than $0.01. See id. The Sub-Penny Rule exemption
coincedes with the Program's expiration date.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68709 (January 23,
2013) 78 FR 6160 (January 29, 2013) (NYSE-2013-04) (amending
Exchange Rule 107C to clarify that RLPs may act in a non-RLP
capacity for those securities to which RLP is not assigned, and as a
result, may submit RPI Orders for those securities); 69513 (May 3,
2013) 78 FR 27261(May 9, 2013) (NYSE-2013-08) (allowing an RMO to
attest that ``substantially all'' orders submitted to the Program
will qualify as Retail Orders); 69103 (March 11, 2013) 78 FR 16547
(March 15, 2013) (NYSE-2013-20) (amending Rule 107C to clarify that
an RMO may submit Retail Orders to the Program in a riskless
principal capacity as well as in an agency capacity, provided that
(i) the entry of such riskless principal orders meets the
requirements of FINRA Rule 5320.03, including that the RMO maintains
supervisory systems to reconstruct, in a time-sequenced manner, all
Retail Orders that are entered on a riskless principal basis; and
(ii) the RMO does not include non-retail orders together with the
Retail Orders as part of the riskless principal transaction); 71330
(January 16, 2014) 79 FR 3895 (January 23, 2014) (NYSE-2013-71)
(incorporating Midpoint Passive Liquidity Orders into the Program);
and 76553 (December 5, 2015 80 FR 46607 (December 9, 2015) (NYSE-
2015-59) (amending Rule 107C to distinguish between orders routed on
behalf of other broker-dealers and orders routed on behalf of
introduced retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed
basis).
    \17\ See RLP Approval Order, supra note 15, at 40681.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the pilot period was originally scheduled to end on July
31, 2013, the Exchange filed to extend the operation of the pilot on
several occasions, with the most recent extension being to provide more
time for the Exchange to prepare this proposed rule change.\20\ The
pilot is currently set to expire on December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83540 (June 28,
2018), 83 FR 31234 (July 3, 2018) (SR-NYSE-2018-29) (extending pilot
until December 31, 2018); 82230 (December 7, 2017), 82 FR 58667
(December 13, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-64) (extending pilot until June
30, 2018); 80844 (June 1, 2017), 82 FR 26562 (June 7, 2017) (SR-
NYSE-2017-26) (extending pilot until December 31, 2017); 79493
(December 7, 2016), 81 FR 90019 (December 13, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-
82) (extending pilot until June 30, 2017); 78600 (August 17, 2016),
81 FR 57642 (August 23, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-54) (extending pilot
until December 31, 2016); 77426 (March 23, 2016), 81 FR 17533 (March
29, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2016-25) (extending pilot until August 31, 2016);
5993 (September 28, 2015), 80 FR 59844 (October 2, 2015) (SR-NYSE-
2015-41) (extending pilot until March 31, 2016); 74454 (March 6,
2015), 80 FR 13054 (March 12, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-10) (extending
pilot until September 30, 2015); 72629 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42564
(July 22, 2014) (NYSE-2014-35) (extending pilot until March 31,
2015); and No. 70096 (Aug. 2, 2013), 78 FR 48520 (Aug. 8, 2013) (SR-
NYSE-2013-48) (extending pilot until July 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that as part of its assessment of the
Program's potential impact, it has posted core weekly and daily summary
data on its website for public investors to review, and that it has
provided additional data to the Commission regarding potential investor
benefits, including the level of price improvement provided by the
Program.\21\ In addition, the Notice includes statistics about
participation, frequency and level of price improvement and effective
and realized spreads, upon which the Exchange relies to summarize its
overall assessment of the Program.\22\ As more fully set forth in the
Notice, the Exchange concludes that the Program has achieved its goal
of attracting retail order flow and allowing such order flow to receive
potential price improvement.\23\ Additionally, the Exchange concludes
that the data relating to the Program ``demonstrates that the Program
had an overall negligible impact on broader market structure.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 28878.
    \22\ See id. at 28878-83
    \23\ See id. at 28879.
    \24\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSE-
2018-28 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act \25\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,\26\ the
Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under
consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with
Sections 6(b)(5) \27\ and 6(b)(8) \28\ of the Exchange Act. Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed, among other things, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not
be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. Section 6(b)(8) of the Exchange Act requires that
the rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received numerous comment letters expressing
concerns with respect to the Program when it was first proposed and
eventually approved

on a pilot basis.\29\ The Program was intended to create additional
price improvement opportunities for retail investors by segmenting
retail order flow on the Exchange.\30\ When the Commission initially
approved the Program on a pilot basis, it explained that it would
monitor the Program throughout the pilot period for its potential
effects on public price discovery and on the broader market
structure.\31\ The Commission expressed its view that the Program
should not cause a major shift in market structure, but instead, it
would closely replicate the trading dynamics that exist in the over-
the-counter markets to present another competitive venue for retail
order flow execution.\32\ As explained above, the Exchange provides an
analysis of what it considers to be the economic benefits for retail
investors and the marketplace flowing from operation of the
Program.\33\ The Exchange also concludes, among other things, that the
Program had an overall negligible impact on the broader market
structure.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See RLP Approval Order, supra note 15, at 40673 n.4.
    \30\ See id., at 40679.
    \31\ See id., at 40680.
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See supra notes 24-26, and Notice, supra note 3, at 28878-
83.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \35\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\36\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\37\ Moreover,
``unquestioning reliance'' on an SRO's representations in a proposed
rule change would not be sufficient to justify Commission approval of a
proposed rule change.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \36\ See id.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See Susquehanna Int'l Group, LLP v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 866 F.3d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the
Commission's reliance on an SRO's own determinations without
sufficient evidence of the basis for such determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission questions whether the information and analysis
provided by the Exchange in the Notice support the Exchange's
conclusions that the Program has achieved its goals, including whether
the Program has had an overall negligible impact on broader market
structure. The Commission seeks additional information and analysis
concerning the Program's impact on the broader market; for example,
additional information to support the view that the Program has not had
a material adverse impact on market quality, and consideration of any
effects that fees and rebates may have had on the operation of the
Program. The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute
proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the
issues raised herein, any potential response to comments or
supplemental information provided by the Exchange, and any additional
independent analysis by the Commission. The Commission believes that
these issues raise questions as to whether the the Exchange has met its
burden to demonstrate, based on the data and analysis provided, that
permanent approval of the Program is consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that the Program be designed to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and the national market
system, protect investors and the public interest, and not be unfairly
discriminatory; or not impose an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on
competition.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of
the Exchange Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, as amended by the
Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975),
grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of
proceeding--either oral or notice and opportunity for written
comments--is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal
by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of
1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No.
75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by October 15, 2018. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
October 29, 2018.
    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-28 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 Numbers SR-NYSE-2018-28. 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 website (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 website 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 these filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All

submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-28 and should be
submitted on or before October 15, 2018. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by October 29, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20658 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 51274-51276]
[DOCID:fr06oc09-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0665; FRL-8793-3]

Lead Dust Hazard Standards and Definition of Lead-Based Paint;
TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice of Receipt and Request for Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA has received a petition from
the National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes,
Sierra Club, et al., (petitioners) on August 10, 2009, and requests
comments on issues raised by the petition. The petition requests, under
section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or, in the
alternative, under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), EPA to lower the regulatory lead
dust standards and modify the regulatory definition of lead-based
paint. EPA must either grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition within
90 days of filing.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0655, by one of the following methods:
      Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
      Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0655. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0655. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Christina Wadlington, National
Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

     This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, distribute,
or use lead-based paint. Since other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
     v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use
of profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. TSCA Section 21

A. What Is a TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA
section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny a TSCA section 21 petition
within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency
must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the
petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the
Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S.
district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking
proceeding within 60 days of either a denial, or if EPA fails to grant
or deny a TSCA section 21 petition, the expiration of the 90-day
period.

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on a TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    The scope of a TSCA section 21 petition is limited to the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an
order under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA
requires that the petition ``set forth the facts which it is claimed
establish that it is necessary'' to issue the rule or order requested.
15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the
statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. In addition,
TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide
whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit
filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15
U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA will refer to the standards in
TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been
requested to evaluate this petition.

III. Summary of TSCA Section 21 Petition Received

A. What Action was Requested?

    On August 10, 2009, EPA received a petition from the National
Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, et
al., petitioning EPA to amend regulations promulgated under TSCA
sections 401 and 403. Specifically, the petitioners are requesting that
EPA:

    ``1. Lower dust lead hazard standards at 40 CFR 745.65(b), 40
CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), and 40 CFR 745.227(h)(3)(i) from 40
micrograms of lead per square foot of surface area ([mu]g/ft\2\) to
10 [mu]g/ft\2\ or less for floors and from 250 [mu]g/ft\2\ to 100
[mu]g/ft\2\ or less for window sills. 2. Modify the definition of
lead-based paint in 40 CFR 745.103 and 745.223 for previously
applied paint or other surface coatings in housing, child-occupied
facilities, public building and commercial buildings to reduce the
lead levels from 0.5 percent by weight (5,000 parts per million
(ppm)) to 0.06 percent by weight (600 ppm) with a corresponding
reduction in the 1.0 milligram per square centimeter standard.''
(Ref. 1) Petition at 2.

B. What Support Do the Petitioners Offer?

    The petitioners provide results of analysis derived from studies
that have become available since the current dust lead standards were
promulgated in 2001. Studies referenced by petitioners, include: Dixon
et al. (2009) (Ref. 2), National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006)
(Ref. 3), Wilson (2008) (Ref. 4), and the Cincinnati Children's
Hospital Medical Center's ``HOME Study.''
    Citing their analysis of data from the National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1999-2004 (Refs. 2 and 4),
the petitioners conclude that:
    1. ``4.6% of children with an average age of 33 months living in
pre-1978 homes would have a blood lead level of 10 [mu]g/[deciliter]dL
or greater when their floor dust lead loading was 12 [mu]g/ft\2\.''
    2. ``At a floor dust lead loading of 12 [mu]g/ft\2\, there is 95%
confidence that no more than 7.9% of children would have a blood lead
level of 10 [mu]g/dL or greater.''
    3. ``5.1% of children would have a blood lead level of 10 [mu]g/dL
or greater when their window sill dust lead loading was 100 [mu]g/
ft\2\.'' Based on this information the petitioners conclude that
``[u]sing EPA's criteria of protecting 95% of children from an elevated
blood lead level (currently defined as 10 [mu]g/dL or greater), dust
standards of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\ for floors and 100 [mu]g/ft\2\ for window
sills should be adopted.'' Petition at 3.
    From their own ``Study of HUD's Risk Assessment Methodology in
Three U.S. Communities'' (Ref .3), the petitioners assert ``that
children living in homes with floor dust lead levels under 20 [mu]g/
ft\2\ had proportionally fewer elevated blood lead levels than children
living in homes where the floor dust lead loading exceeded 20 [mu]g/
ft\2\.'' The petitioners further assert, based on on-going analysis of
the ``HOME Study,'' that ``lower dust standards are achievable.''
Petition at 4.
    The petitioners also contend that ``the economic consequences of a
rule based on the standards recommended in this petition will be less
than EPA originally estimated when it adopted the current standards.''
They provide that in the January 5, 2001 final rule (Ref. 5), EPA
estimated that 22 million homes would have lead dust hazards based on a
standard of 10 [mu]g/ft\2\, and assert that the their ``review of the
Six-Year Follow-Up Study and the HOME Study demonstrated that current
lead hazard control practices are adequate to reduce dust lead below
the levels recommended in the petition.'' The petitioners also assert
that the ``NHANES data suggest that less than 15% of pre-1978 homes-9.8
million homes-would be classified as having a dust lead hazard.''
Petition at 5.
    When reviewing the regulatory definition of lead-based paint at 40
CFR 745.103 and 745.223, the petitioners note that EPA simply adopted
that statutory standard: Lead-based paint means paint or other surface
coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 mg/cm\2\ or
more than 0.5% by weight. Petitioners further note that HUD used the
same definition in its Lead-Safe Housing Rule.
    To support their request that EPA lower the lead level in the
definition of lead-based paint, petitioners explain that ``under the
current standards, paint that contains less than 5,000 ppm of lead
would not be considered lead-based paint. As a result, when a lead
inspector or lead risk assessor documents levels of 4,500 ppm of lead
in the paint, the buyer or tenant would be told that lead-based paint
is not present. The buyer or tenant would be unaware of the potential
dangers of disturbing the paint.'' Petition at 6.
    The petitioners estimate that ``the economic consequences of this
change

in the definition of lead-based paint would primarily impact those
buildings that already have been tested for the presence of lead-based
paint by a certified lead risk assessor or lead inspector and found to
have levels of lead in the paint between 600 ppm and 5,000 ppm (and the
equivalent in mg/cm\2\).'' Petition at 7.

IV. EPA Seeks Public Comment

    Under TSCA section 21, EPA must either grant or deny a petition
within 90 days. EPA is providing this opportunity for the public to
comment on, or provide any additional information relevant to, the
issues identified in the petition. In order for the Agency to consider
such comments within the 90-day petition review period, EPA must
receive the comments on or before October 21, 2009 (see ADDRESSES).
    In assessing the usability of any data or information that may be
submitted, EPA plans to follow the guidelines in EPA's ``A Summary of
General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the Quality of Scientific and
Technical Information'' (EPA 100B-03/001), referred to as the
``Assessment Factors Document.'' The ``Assessment Factors Document''
was published in the Federal Register issue of July 1, 2003 (Ref. 6).

V. References

    1. National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes
and Sierra Club. Letter from Rebecca Morley, National Center for
Healthy Housing; Patrick MacRoy, Alliance for Healthy Homes; and Tom
Neltner, Sierra Club to Administrator Jackson, Environmental Protection
Agency. Re: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding the Paint and Dust Lead
Standards. August 10, 2009.
    2. Dixon, S.L.; Gaitens, J.M.; Jacobs, D.E., et al. (2009) Exposure
of U.S. children to residential dust lead, 1999-2004: II: The
contribution of lead-contaminated dust to children's blood lead levels.
Environmental Health Perspectives. 117(3): 468-474.
    3. National Center for Healthy Housing (rev. 2006) Study of HUDs
Risk Assessment Methodology in Three U.S. Communities: Final Report,
Columbia, MD (accessed 5-13-2009: http://www.nchh.org/
LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HZUenslvU/0=&tabid=217).
    4. Wilson, Jonathan. (2008) Should the EPA Lead Dust Standards be
Lowered? (accessed 5-8-2009: http://www.healthyhomestraining.org/
Research/Translational_Research_11-17_PbDust_Standard_r2.1.pdf).
    5. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final
Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL-6763-5).
Available on-line at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    6. EPA. A Summary of General Assessment Factors for Evaluating the
Quality of Scientific and Technical Information; Notice. Federal
Register (68 FR 39086, July 1, 2003) (FRL-7520-2). Available on-line at
http://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/assess.htm.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Lead dust hazard
standards.

    Dated: September 29, 2009.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. E9-23929 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 49748]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12690-005]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington;
Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects reviewed the Public Utility District No. 1 of
Snohomish County, Washington's (Snohomish PUD) application for a 10-
year license for the proposed Admiralty Inlet Pilot Tidal Project No.
12690, which would be located in Admiralty Inlet in Puget Sound, near
the City of Port Townsend, in Island County, Washington, and has
prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA) in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EA-1949). In the FEA, Commission staff
analyzed the potential environmental effects of constructing and
operating the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the FEA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
202-502-8659. A copy of the EA can also be found on DOE's Public
Reading Room Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/NEPA_FEA_FONSI.aspx. Please reference DOE/EA-1949 in the National Environmental
Policy Act, Documents section.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

For Further Information Contact: Stephen Bowler by telephone at 202-
502-6861 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-19819 Filed 8-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26804-26805]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Quantitative Assessment of Assumptions To Support Extrapolation
of Efficacy in Pediatrics; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with
the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science
and Innovation (CERSI), is announcing a public workshop entitled
``Quantitative Assessment of Assumptions to Support Extrapolation of
Efficacy in Pediatrics.'' The objective of the workshop is to discuss
quantitative and qualitative approaches for verifying assumptions
pertaining to disease and therapeutic response similarity between
adults and children. The workshop will also provide a forum for
discussion on the use of modeling and simulation for systematic
assessment of extrapolation assumptions.

DATES: The public workshop will be held on June 1, 2016, from 8 a.m. to
5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public meeting
participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine
security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security
information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Thomas, Office of Regulatory
Science and Innovation, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4220, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this public workshop is to
provide an opportunity for relevant stakeholders, including clinicians,
academia, industry, and FDA to discuss systematic assessment of data
needed to support extrapolation of efficacy in pediatric product
development. Specifically, the workshop will include: (1) Presentations
on approaches for assessing disease and therapeutic response similarity
between adults and pediatrics, and (2) discussion of alternative
approaches to the assessment of extrapolation assumptions in pediatric
product development, including the use of clinical trial simulation and
Bayesian approaches. Examples in partial onset seizures, inflammatory
bowel diseases, and polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis will be
presented and discussed.
    FDA has verified the Web site addresses in this document, but FDA
is not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this
document publishes in the Federal Register.
    Agenda: The agenda is located at www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/PedsExtrapolation.
    Registration: There is a registration fee to attend this public
workshop in person. Seats are limited and registration will be on a
first-come, first-served basis. To register, please complete
registration online at www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/PedsExtrapolation.
There will be no onsite registration. The costs of registration, to
attend in person, for the different categories of attendees are as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Representative........................................      $50
Nonprofit Organization and Academic other than University of          50
 Maryland......................................................
University of Maryland, College Park and Baltimore.............        0
Federal Government.............................................        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Streaming Webcast of the Public Workshop: This public workshop will
also be Webcast. There is no registration fee for access to the
workshop via the Webcast, but registration is still required.
Information regarding access to the Webcast link is available at
www.pharmacy.umaryland.edu/PedsExtrapolation. If you have never
attended a Connect Pro event before, test your connection at https://collaboration.fda.gov/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm. To get a
quick overview of the Connect Pro program, visit http://www.adobe.com/go/connectpro_overview.
    Accommodations: Attendees are responsible for their own hotel
accommodations. If you need special accommodations while at FDA's White
Oak Campus due to a disability, please contact Shari Solomon at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in advance.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-10397 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P