Materials Characterization Paper

In Support of the

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking –

Identification of Nonhazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste

Coal Combustion Products - Coal Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Boiler Slag

December 17, 2008

====================================================================

1.	Definition of CCPs

Coal combustion products (CCPs) are formed during coal-burning processes
in power plants and industrial boilers.  Coal combustion produces
various forms of CCPs that are categorized by the process in which they
are generated. The CCPs that can be used as ingredients in the
manufacture of portland cement include:

Fly ash: Exhaust gases leaving the combustion chamber of a power plant
entrain particles during the coal combustion process.  To prevent fly
ash from entering the atmosphere, power plants use various collection
devices to remove it from the gases that are leaving the stack. Fly ash
is the finest of coal ash particles.

Bottom ash:  With grain sizes ranging from fine sand to fine gravel,
bottom ash is coarser than fly ash.  Utilities collect bottom ash from
the floor of coal burning furnaces used in the generation of steam, the
production of electric power, or both. The physical characteristics of
the products generated depend on the characteristics of the furnace.

Boiler Slag:  Boiler slag consists of molten ash collected at the base
of cyclone and pulverized coal boilers.  Facilities cool boiler slag
with water, which then shatters into black, angular pieces that range in
size from course sand to fine gravel and have a smooth appearance.

2.	Annual Quantities of CCPs Generated and Used

Sectors that generate CCPs:

The coal-fired power industry, represented by NAICS sector 221112 –
Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, is the largest generator of CCPs.
Other industries, such as commercial boilers and mineral and grain
processors that use coal as a fuel source, also produce small quantities
of CCPs.

Quantities and prices of CCPs generated:

In 2007, the coal-fueled electric power industry generated approximately
71.7 million tons of fly ash, 18.1 million tons of bottom ash, and 2.1
million tons of boiler slag.

In 2003, the price per ton of concrete-quality fly ash, freight on board
(FOB) (i.e., costs net of shipping or transport costs), ranged from
$0-$45 (ACAAa).

In 2003, the price per ton of bottom ash ranged from $3-$8 FOB (ACAAa).

The price of boiler slag could not be determined at this time; as with
many small markets, it may be that most transactions involving boiler
slag are private.

Trends in generation of CCPs:

The coal-fired power industry is the largest generator of CCPs in the
United States. Coal-generated electricity supplies approximately 50
percent of the electricity consumed in the United States (American Coal
Foundation). Since electricity demand is projected to increase in coming
years, and coal will continue to be an important fuel source, the
quantity of CCPs produced and available for beneficial reuse may also
increase (USDOE 2008, p.10). While other industries that use coal as a
fuel source in commercial or industrial boilers (e.g., mineral and grain
processors) also produce CCPs, these quantities tend to be small, and
increases or decreases in their production will not have a significant
impact on the overall trend in CCP production.

3.	Uses of CCPs

Ingredient and combustion uses of CCPs:

Fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag can be added to the raw material
feed in clinker manufacturing to contribute specific required
constituents, such as silica, alumina, and calcium, in the final cement
composition.

Fly ash with high unburned carbon content can also be reburned in cement
kilns for energy recovery at the same time as it provides ingredient
value.

Non-combustion uses of CCPs:

Fly ash can be used in a number of non-combustion applications.  It’s
most common, and most high-value, use is as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete (i.e., a substitute for, or amendment to, portland
cement in concrete mixes).  In this application, fly ash can provide
certain material advantages such as greater workability, higher
strength, and increased longevity in the finished concrete product.  Fly
ash is also used as a partial substitute for virgin dirt, sand, or
gravel in structural fill, or as a substitute for portland cement in
waste stabilization (ACAA 2006).

Bottom ash can be used to offset virgin sand and gravel in applications
such as structural fill, road base, and concrete (ACAA 2006).

Boiler slag can be used to offset virgin sand and gravel in applications
such as structural fill and blasting grit (ACAA 2006).

Quantities of CCPs landfilled:

In 2007, 40 million tons fly ash, 9.2 million tons bottom ash, and 0.41
million tons boiler slag were landfilled, representing roughly 56
percent, 60 percent, and 20 percent of production, respectively.

Quantities of CCPs stockpiled/stored:

The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) estimates that between 100
million and 500 million tons of fly ash have accumulated in U.S.
landfills since the 1920s, when the disposal of fly ash in landfills
began.  It is unclear, however, how much of this fly ash is available
for beneficial use.

The recoverability of fly ash depends significantly on the manner in
which it is disposed.  Fly ash disposed of in a monofill or holding pond
likely would be suitable for beneficial use because it has generally not
been commingled with other materials.  Unfortunately, the ACAA is
unaware of data indicating how much of the 100-500 million tons of
stockpiled fly ash is deposited in monofills or holding ponds

The recovery of landfilled ash for beneficial reuse does not appear to
be widely practiced. Although a portion of the fly ash located in
stockpiles across the U.S. may be available for beneficial use, a recent
analysis of the market for fly ash found that approximately 49 percent
of the 72.4 million tons of fly ash generated in 2006 was beneficially
used (ACAA).  Therefore, even if large quantities from stockpiles were
made available, it is unlikely that the quantity re-used would increase
significantly. In other words, the demand for fly ash appears to be met
by existing production.

Certain electric utilities, however, have pursued programs to recover
ash for use of its residual unburned carbon in power plants.  Examples
include:

Wisconsin Energy Corporation began reburning ash at its Pleasant Prairie
Power Plant in 2000 and expanded reburning to include ash recovered from
landfills in 2001 after receiving approval under Wisconsin’s first
Environmental Cooperative Agreement.  The patented process can use
either dry high-carbon fly ash directly from the company’s older power
plants, or use moist high-carbon ash from WEC’s power plants,
stockpiles, existing landfills, and remediation projects.  According to
its 2006 Performance Report, WEC reburned approximately 11,023 short
tons of recovered landfill ash in 2002 (WEC 2006a, p.69).

In 2001, Western Kentucky Energy's Coleman station in Hawesville,
Kentucky, inaugurated an ash-recovery program developed by staff at the
University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER). The
CAER researchers developed a system to remove fly ash from holding ponds
and extract carbon to create a reburning fuel or several other products
(BNET 2002, pp. 1-2).

Wisconsin Energy Corporation also recovers landfilled ash for sale as a
construction material.  Under the Environmental Cooperative Agreement
and Wisconsin regulations for beneficial industrial byproduct use, the
company recovered 31,967 short tons (706.293 cubic feet) of coal ash
from its P4 landfill and sold it as a base material to replace stone or
gravel under roads, parking lots, and buildings.  Since 2002, more than
93,696 short tons have been recovered (WEC 2006a, p.70).

 Exhibit 1:  Overview of Generation and Use of CCPs in 2007

Commodity	Annual Quantity Generated 	Annual Quantity Used as Ingredient
Annual Quantity Landfilled	Annual Quantity in Other Uses	Total Quantity
Stockpiled as of 2006

Fuel	Cement Ingredient in Kilns

-----------------------------Short Tons -------------------------

Coal fly ash	71.7 million	Undetermined	3.6 million	40.07 million	28.03
million	100 – 500 milliona

Bottom ash	18.1 million	0	0.61 million	10.80 million	6.69 million
Undetermined

Boiler slag	2.1 million	0	0.007 million	0.41 million	1.65 million
Undetermined

Sources:

Unless otherwise noted, data is from American Coal Ash Association.
(ACAA), 2006, Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey,
accessed at:

http://www.acaa-usa.org/associations/8003/files/2007_ACAA_CCP_Survey_Rep
ort_Form%2809-15-08%29.pdf.

Notes:

a. Personal communication with Dave Goss, ACAA, November 27, 2006.

4.	Management and Combustion processes for CCPs

Types of units using CCPs:

When used in clinker manufacture, fly ash, boiler slag, and bottom ash
are fed into cement kilns with other raw material feed.

Sourcing of CCPs:

Although electric utility companies produce ash at their coal-fired
power plants, most utilities do not handle, dispose of, and/or sell the
ash that they produce. There are approximately 40 to 50 commercial ash
marketing firms operating throughout the United States, in all states
except Hawaii. In addition to commercial ash marketing organizations,
certain coal-burning electric utility companies have formal ash
marketing programs of their own. Most coal-burning electric utility
companies currently employ an ash marketing specialist whose
responsibility it is to monitor ash generation, quality, use or
disposal, and to interface with the ash marketers or brokers who are
under contract to the utility companies (Turner Fairbank Highway
Research Center).

Processing of CCPs:

Use of CCPs as a raw feed in cement kilns does not require processing.
However, kilns do require feed of consistent quality, quantity, and
composition in order to ensure that the feed mix in the kiln is
appropriate.  In particular, levels of key metals (e.g., iron and
alumina) in CCPs are carefully calibrated with other ingredients to
ensure that the final cement product has the correct mineral and metal
content.

Due to its pozzolanic properties, stockpiled class C fly ash may harden
over time if exposed to moisture. (Class F fly ash does not exhibit this
characteristic). Hardened class C fly ash must be crushed prior to
beneficial use but is typically limited to use as an aggregate in
concrete. Class F fly ash does not loose reactivity over time and can be
recovered from stockpiles for use in concrete, but it is unclear to what
extent stockpiled Class F fly ash can be used in cement kilns, or
whether it requires processing prior to use.

Bottom ash may require stockpiling for a short period of time (at least
1 or 2 days) to allow excess water to drain prior to beneficial use.
Ponded bottom ash reclaimed from a lagoon should be stockpiled and
allowed to drain for a somewhat longer time period, perhaps up to 1 or 2
weeks, depending on the amount of rainfall. After size reduction, bottom
ash can be screened to produce different size ranges, if desired.
(Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center).

An example of the recovery process used by  Wisconsin Energy Corp.
includes:

Identifying a disposal site that contains the byproducts (typically fly
ash

and bottom ash) and removing a portion of the byproduct;

The removed materials are crushed, screened, and periodically sampled in

accordance with ASTM D2234;

Analyzing a sample of the portion of the byproducts to determine the
loss on ignition of the portion of the byproducts;

Either fly ash or bottom ash or a mixture of both is added in a fine
particle condition to the furnace of a pulverized coal boiler in a small
proportion to the pulverized coal fed to the furnace.  The ash is burned
with the pulverized coal.  The proportion of coal ash is preferably in
the range of 1 percent to 3.5 percent, by weight, of the pulverized
coal.

Introducing the portion of the byproducts along with pulverized coal
into a pulverized coal furnace if the portion of byproducts has a loss
on ignition greater than or equal to a predetermined loss on ignition
value (typically greater than or equal to 1 to 5 percent); and

Burning the portion of the byproducts in the furnace with the pulverized
coal to render the byproducts into a commercially valuable fly ash and
bottom ash having very low loss on ignition, typically lower than 3
percent (WEC 2003, p.7; WEC, p.1).

State status of CCPs use as ingredient:

In the state of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Energy Corporation has an agreement
with the state to burn recovered landfill ash at their power plants.

At this stage, we have not identified any other states that have
specifically given beneficial use designation to the use of CCPs in
clinker manufacture, or that prohibit fly ash use in clinker, but we
have not performed an exhaustive investigation of state activities and
regulations.

5.	CCP Composition and Impacts

Composition of CCPs:

The chemical properties of fly ash are influenced to a great extent by
those of the coal burned. There are basically four types, or ranks, of
coal, each of which varies in terms of its heating value, its chemical
composition, ash content, and geological origin: anthracite, bituminous,
subbituminous, and lignite. The principal components of bituminous coal
fly ash are silica, alumina, iron oxide, and calcium pxide, with varying
amounts of residual, unburned carbon, as measured by the loss on
ignition. Silica, alumina, and calcium are also the primary ingredients
in portland cement, along with iron oxide.  Lignite and subbituminous
coal fly ashes are characterized by higher concentrations of calcium and
magnesium oxide and reduced percentages of silica and iron oxide, as
well as a lower residual carbon content, compared with bituminous coal
fly ash. Very little anthracite coal is burned in utility boilers, so
there are only small amounts of anthracite coal fly ash. Fly ash
contains trace metals, such as vanadium, zinc, copper, chromium, nickel,
lead, arsenic, and mercury.

Bottom ash and boiler slag are composed principally of silica, alumina,
and iron oxide, with smaller percentages of calcium and magnesium
oxides, sulfates, and other compounds. The composition of the bottom ash
or boiler slag particles is controlled primarily by the source of the
coal and not by the type of furnace. Bottom ash or boiler slag derived
from lignite or sub-bituminous coals has a higher percentage of calcium
oxide than the bottom ash or boiler slag from anthracite or bituminous
coals. (Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center).

All of these materials provide effective substitutes for most or all of
the raw materials in cement, but the relative levels of different oxides
must be carefully managed to ensure that the kiln product meets industry
specifications.

Impacts of CCPs use:

In clinker manufacture, CCPs partially offset the need for virgin
silica, iron, and alumina sources. Using CCPs in the cement kiln can
reduce the unit consumption of virgin feed stock materials, which may
reduce the overall emissions associated with materials extraction and
processing, since CCPs generally require less pre-processing than the
virgin materials they replace.

With respect to emissions from the cement kiln itself, to the extent
CCPs have a lower emission profile than the virgin materials they
replace, overall emissions will be reduced. However, CCPs may have
higher emissions of pollutants such as mercury than virgin silica, iron
and alumina sources when burned in the kiln.

The specific lifecycle impacts of CCP use as a raw material in clinker
production are not evaluated here because of uncertainties in lifecycle
scenario development. For example, it is difficult to determine the
replacement ratio between CCPs and other raw feed materials in clinker
production. Thus, the correct quantity of material to be modeled is
unclear. In addition, CCPs may substitute for a combination of virgin
raw materials and other secondary materials (e.g., blast furnace slag,
foundry sand, cement kiln dust, etc.); the choice of material often
depends on location-specific factors such as the proximity of material
sources to the cement kiln and relative availability of different
materials. Avoided upstream impacts depend heavily on the specific
material being displaced in the lifecycle scenario.

When fly ash with a high unburned carbon content is introduced to the
cement kiln during clinker manufacture, fuel supply may be reduced to
accommodate the additional energy provided by the carbon in the fly ash
(Bhatty, Javed et al. 2001).

One health risk issue is currently gaining attention in the use of fly
ash in high-heat applications such as cement manufacture.  When exposed
to elevated temperatures (approximately 2,750 degrees Farenheit) in a
cement kiln, laboratory experiments have found that mercury is readily
released from fly ash (Pflughoeft-Hasset et al. 2007). At this time, the
level of mercury in fly ash has not been considered significant enough
to create a health risk.  However, as coal utilities increasingly employ
mercury capture technologies, some facilities may implement technologies
that result in fly ash with much higher mercury content that is not
suitable for use in cement manufacture.  Other, more expensive
technologies would ensure that most or all fly ash is separate from
mercury capture; at this point it is not clear how much, if any, fly ash
would be affected by mercury capture technology.

Combustion of stockpiled CCPs to produce a low loss on ignition (LOI)
coal ash  has several potential advantages:

Removal, recovery, and characterization of landfilled CCPs so that
recovered CCPs may be put to beneficial use. Characterization includes
energy content, sulphur content, moisture, and trace metals content for
energy and air emissions analyses.

Preservation of licensed landfill space.

Preservation of coal reserves by recovering heat from reclaimed CCPs.

Production of low LOI coal ash that may be substituted for portland
cement thereby reducing the need for portland cement and reducing air
emissions from its production process.

Reduced need for limestone quarries (due to the use of ash as a
substitute for portland cement) and landfill sites (WEC, p.2).

References

American Coal Ash Association (a), “Frequently Asked Questions,”
accessed at:     HYPERLINK "http://www.acaa"  www.acaa-usa.org .

American Coal Ash Association. (ACAA), 2007, Coal Combustion Product
(CCP) Production and Use Survey, accessed at:

http://www.acaa-usa.org/associations/8003/files/2007_ACAA_CCP_Survey_Rep
ort_Form%2809-15-08%29.pdf.

American Coal Foundation, “All About Coal: Fast Facts About Coal,”
accessed at:     HYPERLINK
"http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/fastfacts.html"
http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/fastfacts.html .

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), “America’s
Power: Factoids,” accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts/Factoids"
http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts/Factoids

Bhatty, Javed et al., “Use of High-Carbon Fly Ash In Cement
Manufacture,” Cement Americas, May 1, 2001, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_highcarbon_fly_ash/"
http://cementamericas.com/mag/cement_highcarbon_fly_ash/ .

BNET Business Network, “Disposal and Reuse of Coal Combustion
Byproducts; With Scores of New Coal-Fired Projects Now Being Considered
in the US, Coal Combustion Byproducts are Gaining the Attention of
Owners, Developers, Financial Backers, Governments, Environmental
Groups, and the General Public,” 2002, accessed on August 21, 2008,
at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200201/ai_n21309385.

Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center and the Federal Highway
Administration, User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in
Pavement Construction, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/begin.htm"
http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/begin.htm .

Pflughoeft-Hasset et al., 2007, Analysis of How Carbon-Based Sorbents
Will Impact Fly Ash Utilization and Disposal, Presented at 2007 World of
Coal Ash, May 7-10, 2007, Covington, Kentucky, accessed at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.flyash.info/2007/151pflug.pdf"
http://www.flyash.info/2007/151pflug.pdf .

United States Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Snapshots
for Cement Manufacturing, accessed on August 18, 2008 at:   HYPERLINK
"http://quarterhorse.dsd.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport/servlet/HotRepo
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>AICS2002=327310&forward=20071204152004.Var.NAICS2002"
http://quarterhorse.dsd.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport/servlet/HotRepor
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>ICS2002=327310&forward=20071204152004.Var.NAICS2002 .

United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration
(EIA). 2008, “Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030,”
Publication DOE/EIA-0383 (2008), June 2008.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). March 15, 1999,
Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Removing
Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste Characterization, accessed at:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil//ffc2_399.p
df

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). April 28, 2008,
Study on Increasing the Usage of Recovered Mineral Components in
Federally Funded Projects Involving Procurement of Cement or Concrete to
Address the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEC). 2006 Performance Report,
Environmental Performance, 2006a accessed on August 21, 2008, at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/performrpt/index.htm"
http://www.wisconsinenergy.com/performrpt/index.htm .

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEC). Annual Performance Report,
Environmental Cooperative Agreement, Pleasant Prairie Power Plant,
Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, June 2006b, accessed on August 25, 2008 at:
 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cea/ecpp/agreements/wepco/reports/2006report
.pdf

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEC). “Amendment and Extension of the
Environmental Cooperative Agreement between We Energies’ Pleasant
Prairie Power Plant and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,”
Fact Sheet, Pub #CO-312, February 2006c, accessed on August 25, 2008 at:
 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cea/ecpp/agreements/wepco/agreements/amended
/factsheet20060205.pdf

Wisconsin Energy Corporation (WEC). “Coal Combustion Products
Utilization Handbook,” first published in 2000, second edition 2004,
accessed on August 22, 2008 at:
http://www.bloomconsultants.com/published-MT_Coal-Combustion.htm

 This paper focuses on CCPs used primarily as an ingredient in cement
manufacture; see the Materials Characterization Paper for Coal Refuse
for further information on mining rejects and combustion applications.

 The report indicates that between 2003 and 2006, the facility did not
reburn any recovered coal ash from its landfill.  During these years,
however, the facility continued to reburn coal ash generated by power
plants.

 During a pilot project to reprocess landfilled combustion products that
was conducted by Wisconsin Energy Corporation in July and October 1998,
samples were collected every 30 minutes from the transfer point where
the ash fell onto the stacker conveyor during the entire operation per
the ASTM standard, and a composite sample was prepared for every 5,000
tons processed and tested.

 Landfill ash recovery operations at the Western Kentucky Energy
(Coleman Station) involves the following activities. Ash first must be
recovered from the pond or landfill and then separated into its
fundamental components:  carbon, silicates, and high-density, iron-rich
materials. A coarse carbon-fuel product is recovered by density
separation using concentrating spirals.  A fine carbon-fuel product is
recovered with flotation cells.

   Listed by relative frequency.  See USEPA, March 15, 1999.

 Recovery of landfilled ash may require extra screening.  For example,
during the removal of ash from a landfill in Wisconsin in 2000, the
removed materials were crushed, screened and periodically sampled in
accordance with ASTM D2234.  It was found that over 99 percent of the
material removed consisted of coal combustion products, with foreign
materials consisting of lost items from landfill operators (e.g., soda
cans, safety ribbon, gloves, etc.) (WEC, 2006, p3).

		Coal Combustion Products

  PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 66695]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24081]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2007-0584; FRL-10365-01-OLEM]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans (Renewal)
EPA ICR No. 0328.19, OMB Control No. 2050-0021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans'' (EPA ICR No.
0328.19, OMB Control No. 2050-0021), to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on
specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through July 30, 2023. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2007-0584, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected].
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Proprietary Business Information (PBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark W. Howard, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-1965; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The authority for EPA's oil pollution prevention
requirements is derived from section 311(j)(1)(C) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is
codified at 40 CFR part 112. An SPCC Plan will help an owner or
operator identify the necessary procedures, equipment, and resources to
prevent an oil spill and to respond to an oil spill in a timely manner.
Although the owner or operator is the primary data user, EPA may also
require the owner or operator to submit data to the Agency in certain
situations to ensure facilities comply with the SPCC regulation and to
help allocate response resources. State and local governments may use
the data, which are not generally available elsewhere and can assist
local emergency preparedness planning efforts.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of facilities
required to have Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
plans under the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112)
and which, because of their location, could reasonably be expected to
cause substantial harm to the environment.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 549,785 (total).
    Frequency of response: Facilities must prepare and implement an
SPCC Plan before beginning operations and review, evaluate and update
the SPCC Plan every five years. In the event of certain discharges of
oil into navigable waters, a facility owner or operator must submit
certain information to the Regional Administrator within 60 days.
    Total estimated burden: 6,309,523 hours (per year). This figure
will be updated as needed during the 60-day OMB review period. Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $857,835,543 (per year), includes
$201,002,128 annualized capital or operation & maintenance (O&M) costs.
These figures will be updated with most recent available wage rates
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and to account for any changes in
O&M costs, burden and number of respondents.
    Changes in Estimates: The above burden estimates are based on the
current approved ICR, OMB Control No. 0328.18. In the final notice for
the renewal ICR, EPA will publish revised burden estimates based on
updates to respondent data and unit costs. Any change in burden will be
described and explained in this section when the updated ICR Supporting
Statement is completed during the 60-day OMB review period.

Donna Salyer,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2022-24081 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2924-2925]
[FR Doc No: 2010-845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Thirteenth Plenary Meeting, RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG
71: Software Considerations in Aeronautical Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG 71: Software
Considerations in Aeronautical Systems meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 205/EUROCAE WG 71: Software
Considerations in Aeronautical Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 8-12, 2010.

ADDRESS: The meeting will be held at MainSail Hotel and Conference
Center, 5108 Eisenhower Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33634, Phone: (813)
243-2600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 205: EUROCAE WG 71: Software
Considerations in Aeronautical Systems meeting. The agenda will
include:

Day 1--Monday, February 8, 2010

 08:15 a.m.--Registration
 08:30 a.m.--Chair's Introductory Remarks
 08:45 a.m.--Facilities Review
 08:50 a.m.--Recognition of the FAA Federal and EASA
Representatives
 09:00 a.m.--Review of Meeting Agenda and Agreement of Previous
Minutes
 09:15 a.m.--Host Presentation
 09:30 a.m.--Reports of Sub-Group Activity
 10:00 a.m.--Other Committee/Other Documents Interfacing
Personnel Reports (CAST, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Security, WG-63/SAE
S-18)
 10:30 a.m.--Break
 10:45 a.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 10:45 a.m.--New Member Introduction Session--All new committee
members are invited to attend an introduction session to explain the
operation of the committee, the various sub-groups and the topics they
are dealing with and the Web site.
 11:45 a.m.--Lunch
 13:00 p.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 13:00 p.m.--CAST Meeting
 14:30 p.m.--Break
 14:45 p.m.--Plenary Session: Text Acceptance (for papers
posted, commented on and reworked prior to Plenary)
 18:00 p.m.--Close of Day

Day 2--Tuesday, February 9, 2010

 08:00 a.m.--Executive Committee and SG Chairs/Secretaries
Meeting
 08:30 a.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 10:00 a.m.--Break
 10:30 a.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 12:30 p.m.--IP submittals due for Wednesday Plenary
 12:45 p.m.--Lunch
 14:00 p.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 14:45 p.m.--Break
 15:00 p.m.--Mandatory Paper Reading Session
 17:00 p.m.--Close
 17:00 p.m.--Executive Committee and SG Chairs/Secretaries
Meeting

Day 3--Wednesday, February 19, 2010

 08:30 a.m.--IP Comment Reply & Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
(focused on finalizing any changes to papers being presented later in
the morning)
 10:00 a.m.--Break
 10:30 a.m.--IP Comment Reply & Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
(cont.)
 12:00 p.m.--Lunch
 13:15 p.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 13:15 p.m.--CAST Meeting
 14:45 p.m.--Break
 15:00 p.m.--Plenary Text Acceptance (for papers posted,
commented on and reworked prior to Plenary)

    Note:  If required for text acceptance, the end time for this
session may extend up to 19:30 p.m.

 18:00 p.m.--Close
 Evening--Social Event

Day 4--Thursday, February 11, 2010

 08:30 a.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 10:00 a.m.--Break
 10:30 a.m.--Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
 12:30 p.m.--IP submittals due for Friday Plenary
 12:30 p.m.--Lunch
 13:30 p.m.--Plenary Session (if needed, otherwise SG Break Out
Session)
 14:45 p.m.--Break
 15:00 p.m.--Mandatory Paper Reading Session

 17:00 p.m.--Close
 17:00 p.m.--Executive Committee and SG Chairs/Secretaries
Meeting

Day 5--Friday, February 12, 2010

 08:00 a.m.--IP Comment Reply & Sub-Group Break Out Sessions
(focused on finalizing any changes to papers being presented during the
morning)
 09:30 a.m.--Break
 10:00 a.m.--Plenary Text Approval.
 12:00 p.m.--SG1: SCWG Document Integration Sub-Group Report
 12:05 p.m.--SG2: Issue & Rationale Sub-Group Report
 12:10 p.m.--SG3: Tool Qualification Sub-Group Report
 12:15 p.m.--SG4: Model Based Design & Verification Sub-Group
Report
 12:20 p.m.--SG5: Object Oriented Technology Sub-Group Report
 12:25 p.m.--SG6: Formal Methods Sub-Group Report
 12:30 p.m.--SG7: Special Considerations Sub-Group Report
 12:35 p.m.--Any Other Business and Next Meeting Information
 12:40 p.m.--Closing Remarks & Meeting Adjourned
 12:45 p.m.--Meeting Evaluation (Round Robin)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-845 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 55811]
[DOCID:fr14se10-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1933-DR]

Wisconsin; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1933-DR), dated August 11, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 11, 2010.
    Calumet County for Public Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-22854 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: November 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 67087-67088]
[DOCID:fr01no10-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0469; FRL-9219-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum
Production Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR); EPA ICR No.
2400.01, OMB Control Number 2060--NEW

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection.
The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the
information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 1,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0469, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 22821T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rochelle Boyd, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, D243-02, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-1390; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 26, 2010 (75 FR 43520), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment during the
comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0469, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document. Please note that EPA's policy is that
public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be
made available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Secondary Aluminum Production Residual Risk and
Technology Review (RTR).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2400.01, OMB Control No. 2060--New.
    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
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. The OMB control numbers for

EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR was developed specifically for secondary
aluminum production facilities and has been tailored to the processes
at secondary aluminum production facilities. EPA intends to provide the
survey in electronic format. The survey will be sent to all facilities
identified as owning or operating secondary aluminum production
facilities through information available to the Agency.
    Information is requested from approximately 400 secondary aluminum
production facilities on general facility information, process
information, emission control devices used at the facilities and their
basic design and operating features, quantity of air emissions,
throughput and capacity of process units. An update of the 2005
National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment/National Emissions Inventory data
sets and more specific information needed for further rulemaking would
be derived from the ICR. This information is necessary for EPA to
adequately characterize residual risk at these facilities, and to
develop standards for new and existing secondary aluminum production
facilities under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    EPA is charged, under section 112 of the CAA, with developing
national emission standards for 189 listed hazardous air pollutants
(HAP). The Secondary Aluminum Production Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (Secondary Aluminum MACT) standard (40 CFR part 63, subpart
RRR) is a national emission standard for HAP developed under the
authority of section 112(d) of the CAA. EPA is required to review each
MACT standard and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes and control technologies)'' no
less frequently than every eight years. These reviews are commonly
referred to as ``technology reviews.'' In addition, EPA is required to
assess the risk remaining (residual risk) after implementation of the
MACT standard and promulgate more stringent standards if they are
necessary to protect public health. Under EPA's RTR program, EPA is
addressing these two requirements concurrently. EPA is updating the
information they currently possess and filling identified data gaps in
that information in order to provide a thorough basis for the RTR
efforts. The data collection effort will gather additional information
to allow comprehensive and technically sound analyses that will form
the basis for future rulemaking decisions. Responses to the ICR are
mandatory under the authority of section 114 of the CAA.
    Burden Statement: The one time public reporting burden for the
collection of this information is estimated to average 91 hours per
response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of secondary
aluminum production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 400 facilities.
    Frequency of Response: One time.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 36,248.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3,429,747, which includes $1,200 in
operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection.

    Dated: October 26, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-27508 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75852-75854]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29698]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73836; File No. SR-BX-2014-059]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Changes to Amend Rule
7018 to establish Fees and Rebates in Connection with BX's Retail Price
Improvement (``RPI'') Program

December 15, 2014.
    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 December 3, 2014, NASDAQ OMX 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. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exchange initially filed the
proposed rule change on November 24, 2014 under File Number SR-BX-
2014-058. On December 3, 2014, the Exchange withdrew SR-BX-2014-058
due to errors in the Form 19b-4 and Exhibit 1, and refiled the
proposed rule change under SR-BX-2014-059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing changes to amend BX Rule 7018 to
establish fees and rebates in connection with BX's Retail Price
Improvement (``RPI'') Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the
proposed rule change on December 1, 2014, contemporaneously with the
launch of the RPI Program.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.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. 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend BX Rule 7018 to establish
fees and rebates for execution of orders under BX's recently filed RPI
Program.\4\ Under the RPI Program, a member (or a division thereof)
approved by the Exchange to participate in the program (a ``Retail
Member Organization'' or ``RMO'') may submit designated ``Retail
Orders'' \5\ for the purpose of seeking price improvement. All BX
members may enter retail price improvement orders (``RPI Orders''),\6\
a form of non-displayed orders that are priced more aggressively than
the Protected National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'') by at least $0.001
per share, for the purpose of offering such price improvement. RMOs may
use two types of Retail Orders. A Type 1 Retail Order is eligible to
execute only against RPI Orders and other orders (such as midpoint
pegged orders) that will provide price improvement. Type 2 Retail
Orders interact first with available RPI Orders and other price
improving orders, and then are eligible to access non-price improving
liquidity on the BX book and to route to other trading venues if so
designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73410 (October 23,
2014), 79 FR 64447 (October 29, 2014) (SR-BX-2014-048) (proposing
RPI program and exemption from SEC Rule 612 under Regulation NMS, 17
CFR 242.612, in connection therewith).
    \5\ A Retail Order is defined in BX Rule 4780(a)(2), in part, as
``an agency or riskless principal order that satisfies the criteria
of FINRA Rule 5320.03, that originates from a natural person and is
submitted to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided
that no change is made to the terms of the order with respect to
price (except in the case that a market order is changed to a
marketable limit order) or side of market and the order does not
originate from a trading algorithm or any other computerized
methodology.''
    \6\ A Retail Price Improvement Order is defined in BX Rule
4780(a)(3), in part, as consisting of ``non-displayed liquidity on
the Exchange that is priced better than the Protected NBBO by at
least $0.001 and that is identified as such.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX proposes to offer a rebate of $0.0025 per share executed to RMOs
with respect to Retail Orders that execute against RPI Orders. RMO
orders that execute against other orders providing price improvement
with respect to the NBBO will receive a rebate otherwise applicable to
executions of orders that access liquidity. For Type 2 Retail Orders
that execute against non-price improving orders on the BX book, BX will
offer a rebate otherwise applicable to execution of orders that access
liquidity. Similarly, when Type 2 Retail Orders are routed and execute
at another trading venue, BX will charge the fee otherwise applicable
to execution of routed orders. For RPI orders that provide liquidity,
BX will charge a fee of $0.0025 per share executed. Other orders that
provide liquidity to Retail Orders will receive the credit or pay the
fee otherwise applicable to orders that provide liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons

using any facility or system which BX operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees with respect to the RPI program are reflective of
BX's ongoing efforts to use pricing incentive programs to attract
orders of retail customers to BX and improve market quality. The goal
of this program and similar pricing incentives is to provide meaningful
incentives for members that represent the orders of retail customers to
increase their participation on BX.
    The proposed credit of $0.0025 per share executed with respect to
Retail Orders that access Retail Price Improvement Order liquidity
offering price improvement is reasonable because it will result in a
significant increase of rebates with respect to such orders, thereby
reducing the costs of members that represent retail customers and that
take advantage of the program, and potentially also reducing costs to
the customers themselves. The change is consistent with an equitable
allocation of fees because BX believes that it is reasonable to use
rebate increases as a means to encourage greater retail participation
in BX. Because retail orders are likely to reflect long-term investment
intentions, they promote price discovery. Accordingly, their presence
in the BX market has the potential to benefit all market participants.
For this reason, BX believes that it is equitable to provide
significant financial incentives to encourage greater retail
participation in the market. BX further believes that the proposed
program is not unreasonably discriminatory because it is offered to
firms representing retail customers without regard to the firm's
trading volumes, and is therefore complementary to existing programs,
such as the Routable Order Program that already aim to encourage
greater retail participation, but that have minimum volume requirements
associated with them. The proposed fees and credits with respect to
Retail Orders that execute against liquidity other than that provided
by Retail Price Improvement Orders or by routing to other trading
venues are reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unreasonably
discriminatory because they do not reflect a change from the fees and
credits currently in effect with respect to orders that access
liquidity on BX or route.
    The proposed fee with respect to a Retail Price Improvement Order
that provides liquidity is reasonable because, as previously recognized
by the Commission, it reflects the fact that markets often seek to
distinguish between orders of individual retail investors and orders of
professional traders.\9\ In this instance, the RPI seeks to balance the
consideration that ``retail investors may [sic] on average be less
informed about short-term price movements . . . [than] professional
traders'' \10\ with a fee charged to liquidity providers and a program
designed to provide retail investors with price improvement and
favorable execution prices. BX further believes that the fee charged
with respect to Retail Price Improvement Orders is equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory for this same reason, and also because the
use of such orders by liquidity providers is voluntary. Firms that
believe that potential advantages of interacting with Retail Orders
outweigh the costs of price improvement and the fee charged by BX will
employ this new order type. Those that do not are free to forego
involvement in the program and pay a fee under BX's standard price
schedule when providing liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67347 (July 3, 2012), 77
FR 40763 [sic], 40769-40680 [sic] (July 10, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2011-55;
SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, BX notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, BX must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. BX believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it is designed to allow BX to compete
with other exchanges and that offer similar price improvement programs
for retail orders.

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

    BX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. In this instance,
the introduction of the RPI program is designed to allow BX to compete
more effectively with the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT
LLC (``MKT''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca'''') and the BATS-Y Exchange,
all of which offer similar programs designed to attract retail order
flow. BX has structured its fees in a manner similar to these
exchanges, but as a new ``entrant'' in the field of those exchanges
offering such programs. Specifically, BX will offer a higher credit to
Retail Orders than NYSE, MKT, or Arca and will offer the credit with
respect to all securities priced above $1 that it trades. BX will,
however, offset these higher credits for retail orders by charging a
higher fee to liquidity providers than is the case with some of its
competitors. BX believes that the proposed higher credits with respect
to Retail Orders will enhance competition by drawing additional retail
order flow to BX and possibly encouraging other trading venues to make
competitive pricing changes.
    With respect to the proposed fees for Retail Price Improvement
Orders, because the market for order execution is extremely
competitive, members that provide liquidity may readily opt to forego
participation in the BX program if they believe that alternatives offer
them better value. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in
connection with the statutory basis for the proposed rule change, BX
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2014-059 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-2014-059. 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 such 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-2014-059 and should be
submitted on or before January 9, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29698 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33461-33463]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11584]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0359; FRL-9886-01-R8]

Air Plan Approval; North Dakota; Removal of Exemptions to Visible
Air Emissions Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision it received on
November 11, 2016, submitted by the State of North Dakota, through the
North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH). The revision was submitted by
North Dakota in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP
call published on June 12, 2015, for a provision in the North Dakota
SIP related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision
and proposing to determine that this SIP revision corrects the
deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2022-0359 at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information, the
disclosure of which 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. 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, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-IO, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it refers to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For
each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA,
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP
calls by November 22, 2016. In the 2015 SSM Action, EPA issued a SIP
call for the North Dakota SIP, since EPA found that provision 33-15-03-
04.3, located in the State's SIP, is inconsistent with the CAA and the
2015 SSM Policy because it allows for discretionary exemptions from
otherwise applicable emission limitations through a State official's
unilateral exercise of discretionary authority that is insufficiently
bounded. As noted in a previous footnote, shortly after North Dakota
proposed the November 11, 2016 SIP revision, the State created a new
environmental agency, the North Dakota Department of Environmental
Quality (NDDEQ), and North Dakota's Air Pollution rules were recodified
under the NDAC as 33.1-15 instead of 33-15.\2\ Therefore, from here on
in this document, EPA will refer to provision 33-15-03.04.3 as 33.1-
15.03-04.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2017, the North Dakota State legislature created the
NDDEQ that assumed all the duties and responsibilities of the NDDH's
Environmental Health Section. To accommodate the new NDDEQ, the
North Dakota Air Pollution Control Law was recodified in the North
Dakota Century Code (NDCC) as NDCC 23.1-06 and the Air Pollution
Rules were recodified in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC)
as NDAC 33.1-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\3\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific State SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to North Dakota in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\4\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including minority, low-income and
indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\5\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular
SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends
to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the
Agency takes action on SIP submissions, including North Dakota's
November 11, 2016 SIP submittal provided in response to the 2015 SIP
call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \5\ 80 FR 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the North Dakota SIP, EPA proposes to approve the
removal of provision 33.1-15-03-04.3 from Article 33.1-15-03,
Restriction of Emission of Visible Air Contaminants.\6\ This provision
was among those that EPA determined were inconsistent with the CAA in
the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Provision 33.1-15-03-04.3 stated that the
otherwise applicable emission

limitations for opacity in several other listed regulations do not
apply ``where an applicable opacity standard is established for a
specific source.'' In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that this
provision allowed a State official to modify the opacity limits in a
permit or other document to allow emissions in excess of the otherwise
applicable SIP limitations. The detailed rationale for issuing the SIP
call to North Dakota can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its
November 11, 2016 SIP submission, North Dakota is requesting that EPA
revise the North Dakota SIP by removing 33.1-15-03-04.3 in its
entirety, thereby removing this provision from the State's SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The North Dakota State Health Council adopted the amendments
removing provision 33-15-03-0.3 on February 24, 2016 (effective July
1, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of SIP Submission

    EPA is proposing to approve North Dakota's November 11, 2016 SIP
revision requesting the removal of provision 33.1-15-03-04.3 from the
State's SIP. We consider the removal of this provision sufficient to
correct the inadequacies that EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action identified in
the North Dakota SIP.\7\ As a result of the removal from the SIP, the
impermissible discretionary exemptions from emissions limitations
contained within this provision will no longer be available to sources.
As explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action (80 FR at 33848), the removal
of an exemption is an appropriate way to address the inadequacy. EPA's
proposed approval of this revision is consistent with CAA section
110(l) because approval will not interfere with any applicable
requirement of the CAA. Specifically, by removing the discretionary
exemptions created by 33.1-15-03-04.3, the SIP is now more protective.
Therefore, we are proposing to approve the removal of this provision
from the SIP. Because removal of this provision would fully address the
inadequacies that the 2015 SSM SIP Action identified in the North
Dakota SIP, this proposed action, if finalized, will satisfy North
Dakota's obligations pursuant to EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a more in-depth discussion on the inadequacies of 33-15-
03-04.3, see our proposed 2015 SSM SIP Action, 78 FR 12459, 12531-
32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). EPA is
proposing to approve North Dakota's November 11, 2016 SIP submission
requesting removal of 33.1-15-03-04.3 from the State SIP. We are
proposing approval of the SIP revision because we have determined that
it is consistent with the requirements for SIP provisions under the
CAA. EPA is further proposing to determine that such SIP revision
corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call. EPA
is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only taking comment on
whether this SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements and
whether it addresses the substantial inadequacy in the specific North
Dakota SIP provision (33.1-15-03-04.3) identified in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. EPA has previously taken action on other parts of the North
Dakota November 11, 2016 SIP submittal and therefore these other
elements have not been addressed in this action nor will EPA be taking
comments on those topics at this time.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 83 FR 22227, May 14, 2018 (proposed rule) and 84 FR
11646, March 28, 2019 (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to remove in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to remove the
incorporation by reference of ``33.1-15-03-04.3'' in 40 CFR 52.1820, as
described in Section II of this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves removal of State law not meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those already imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 24, 2022.
K.C. Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-11584 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P