[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30681-30686]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13640]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0125; FRL-9995-69-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Revisions to NOX SIP Call and CAIR Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve under the Clean Air Act (CAA) a request from the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) to revise the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate revisions to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-14 regarding the Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) SIP Call and the removal of OAC Chapter 3745-109
regarding the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This SIP revision would
ensure continued compliance by Electric Generating Units (EGUs) and
large non-EGUs with the requirements of the NOX SIP Call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2018-0125 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?
II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

    Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), called the good neighbor
provision, states are required to address interstate transport of air
pollution. Specifically, the good neighbor provision provides that each
state's SIP must contain provisions prohibiting emissions from within
that state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.
    On October 27, 1998, EPA published the NOX SIP Call,
which required eastern states, including Ohio, to submit SIPs that
prohibit excessive emissions of ozone season NOX by
implementing statewide emissions budgets (63 FR 57356). The
NOX SIP Call addressed the good neighbor provision for the
1979 ozone NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of transported
NOX emissions, one of the precursors of ozone. EPA developed
the NOX Budget Trading Program, an allowance trading program
that states could adopt to meet their obligations under the
NOX SIP Call. This trading program allowed certain sources
to participate in a regional cap and trade program: EGUs with capacity
greater than 25 megawatts; and large non-EGUs, such as boilers and
turbines, with a rated heat input greater than 250 million British
thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr). The NOX SIP Call also
identified potential reductions from Portland cement kilns and
stationary internal combustion engines. In fulfillment of the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call, Ohio EPA promulgated OAC
Chapter 3745-14 which, among other things, required EGUs and large non-
EGUs in the state to participate in the NOX Budget Trading
Program. On August 5, 2003, EPA published an action approving this
initial version of OAC Chapter 3745-14 into the Ohio SIP (68 FR 46089).
EPA has subsequently approved revised portions of OAC Chapter 3745-14
into the SIP, with the most recent revision published on November 14,
2013 (78 FR 68367).
    On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which required eastern states,
including Ohio, to submit SIPs that prohibited emissions consistent
with annual and ozone season NOX budgets and annual sulfur
dioxide (SO2) budgets (70 FR 25152). CAIR addressed the good
neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact
of transported NOX emissions, a precursor of ozone as well
as PM2.5, as well as transported SO2 emissions,
another precursor of PM2.5. Like the NOX SIP
Call, CAIR also established several trading programs that states could
use as mechanisms to comply with the budgets. When the CAIR trading
program for ozone season NOX was implemented beginning in
2009, EPA discontinued administration of the NOX Budget
Trading Program, but the requirements of the NOX SIP Call
continued to apply. To meet the requirements of CAIR, Ohio EPA
promulgated OAC Chapter 3745-109, which required EGUs to participate in
the CAIR annual SO2 and annual and ozone season
NOX trading programs. Participation by EGUs in the CAIR
trading program for ozone season NOX addressed the state's
obligation under the NOX SIP Call for those units. Ohio EPA
also opted to incorporate large non-EGUs previously regulated under OAC
Chapter 3745-14 into OAC Chapter 3745-109, to meet the obligations of
the NOX SIP Call with respect to those units through the
CAIR trading program as well. On September 25, 2009, EPA published an
action approving OAC Chapter 3745-109 into the Ohio SIP (74 FR 48857).
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008, but ultimately
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896,
modified, 550 F.3d 1176 (2008). The ruling allowed CAIR to remain in
effect temporarily until a replacement rule consistent with the court's
opinion was developed. While EPA worked on developing a replacement
rule, the CAIR program continued as planned with the NOX
annual and ozone season programs beginning in 2009 and the
SO2 annual program beginning in 2010.
    On August 8, 2011, acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
published the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR
and to address the good neighbor provision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
(76 FR 48208). Through Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), CSAPR
required EGUs in eastern states, including Ohio, to meet annual and
ozone season NOX budgets and annual SO2 budgets
implemented through new trading programs. CSAPR also contained
provisions that would sunset CAIR-related obligations on a schedule
coordinated with the implementation of the CSAPR compliance
requirements. Participation by a state's EGUs in the CSAPR trading
program for ozone season NOX generally addressed the state's
obligation under the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. However, CSAPR
did not initially contain provisions allowing states to incorporate
large non-EGUs into that trading program to meet the requirements of
the NOX SIP Call for non-EGUs.
    CSAPR was intended to become effective January 1, 2012; however,
the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by subsequent
litigation in which the D.C. Circuit stayed implementation of the rule
pending judicial review. See Per Curium Order, EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (December 30, 2011), ECF No.
1350421. After subsequent litigation,\1\ the court granted EPA's

motion to lift the stay \2\ and, on December 3, 2014, EPA issued an
interim final rule, setting the updated effective date of CSAPR as
January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71663). In accordance with the interim final
rule, EPA stopped administering the CAIR trading programs with respect
to emissions occurring after December 31, 2014, and EPA began
implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C.
Cir. 2012) (EME Homer City I) (vacating and remanding CSAPR); EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 572 U.S. 489 (2014) (reversing the
D.C. Circuit decision and remanding for further proceedings).
    \2\ Per Curium Order, EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014) ECF No. 1518738. The D.C.
Circuit subsequently issued its decision on remand from the Supreme
Court, largely affirming CSAPR but remanding certain states budgets
to EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
No. 795 F.3d 118 (EME Homer City II).
    \3\ EPA solicited comment on the interim final rule and
subsequently issued a final rule affirming the amended compliance
schedule after consideration of comments received. 81 FR 13275
(March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2016, EPA published the CSAPR Update, which
established a new ozone season NOX trading program for EGUs
in eastern states, including Ohio, to address the good neighbor
provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (81 FR 74504). As under CSAPR,
participation by a state's EGUs in the new CSAPR trading program for
ozone season NOX generally addressed the state's obligation
under the NOX SIP Call for EGUs. The CSAPR Update also
expanded options available to states for meeting NOX SIP
Call requirements for large non-EGUs by allowing states to incorporate
those units into the new trading program.
    After evaluating the various options available following CSAPR
Update, Ohio EPA chose to meet the ongoing NOX SIP Call
requirements for existing and new large non-EGUs by modifying its
existing regulations at OAC Chapter 3745-14 to make the portion of the
budget assigned to large non-EGUs under that program enforceable
without an allowance trading mechanism.
    Specifically, while Ohio rescinded portions of its NOX
Budget Trading Program rules under OAC Chapter 3745-14 pertaining to
individual unit allowance allocations and trading, the state retained
and amended the provisions of those rules pertaining to applicability,
the statewide emissions budgets for EGUs and large non-EGUs, and
monitoring and reporting under 40 CFR part 75. Ohio also retained a
provision of the trading program rules exempting EGUs covered by a more
recent ozone season NOX trading program from coverage under
the state's amended program, but updated the provision to base the
exemption on participation in the CSAPR Update trading program for
ozone season NOX instead of the corresponding CAIR trading
program. In addition, Ohio retained other rules under OAC Chapter 3745-
14 addressing NOX emissions from cement kilns and stationary
internal combustion engines outside the NOX Budget Trading
Program. Finally, Ohio also rescinded its CAIR trading program rules in
OAC Chapter 3745-109 in full.
    As described in its February 5, 2018 submission, Ohio EPA invited
public comments regarding its changes to OAC Chapter 3745-14 and OAC
Chapter 3745-109. Ohio EPA received one supportive comment, as well as
one adverse comment regarding Ohio's retention of part 75 monitoring
requirements.
    On March 8, 2019, EPA finalized updates to the NOX SIP
Call rules to allow states to meet the NOX SIP Call's
monitoring requirements using approaches other than part 75 monitoring
(84 FR 8422). Ohio's February 5, 2018, submission predates EPA's
updates to the NOX SIP Call's monitoring requirements, and,
therefore, does not include changes that allow its sources to meet the
NOX SIP Call's monitoring requirements using approaches
other than part 75 monitoring. EPA is assisting Ohio EPA with preparing
a revised submission that would make other monitoring approaches
available to Ohio sources, and EPA will address such a submission in a
future rulemaking.

II. What is EPA's analysis of this SIP submission?

    Ohio's February 5, 2018 submission requests that EPA update Ohio's
SIP to reflect the revised rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14 and the
rescission of rules at OAC Chapter 3745-109. Additionally, this
submission includes a demonstration under Section 110(l) of the CAA
intended to show that this SIP revision does not interfere with any
applicable CAA requirement.

A. Revised and Rescinded State Rules

    Given EPA's replacement of CAIR with CSAPR and EPA's
discontinuation of administration of the NOX Budget Trading
Program, Ohio updated its NOX SIP Call rules at OAC Chapter
3745-14 to address the NOX SIP Call's requirements with
respect to existing and new large non-EGUs in a manner that does not
rely on the administration of a trading program. Ohio also rescinded
its CAIR rules at OAC Chapter 3745-109. Both sets of rule changes have
a state-effective date of January 28, 2018. Ohio's February 5, 2018,
submission includes a request that EPA approve these updated rules into
its SIP.
    The state regulations addressing the NOX SIP Call were
formerly established at OAC rules 3745-14-01 through 3745-14-12.
Because EPA discontinued administration of this trading program in
2009, Ohio has rescinded certain portions of these rules that can no
longer be implemented. Specifically, Ohio rescinded OAC rules 3745-14-
02, 3745-14-05, 3745-14-06, 3745-14-07, 3745-14-09, and 3745-14-10
pertaining to individual unit allowance allocations, trading, opt-in,
and other non-implementable provisions under the NOX Budget
Trading Program. However, for purposes of continued compliance with the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call, Ohio retained and amended
OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 pertaining
to applicability, the statewide emissions budgets for EGUs and large
non-EGUs, and part 75 monitoring and reporting under the former trading
program. Ohio also retained OAC rules 3745-14-11 and 3745-14-12
regarding cement kilns and stationary internal combustion engines
outside the former trading program. The state's amendments to OAC rule
3745-14-01 require Ohio EPA to ensure that the statewide budget for
large non-EGUs will continue to be met in the absence of a trading
program mechanism. Table 1 presents a summary of Ohio's revisions to
OAC Chapter 3745-14.

                Table 1--Revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rule                        Title               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3745-14-01....................  Definitions and         Amended.
                                 General Provisions.
3745-14-02....................  The NOX Authorized      Rescinded.
                                 Account
                                 Representatives.
3745-14-03....................  The NOX Budget Permit   Amended.
                                 Requirements.
3745-14-04....................  Compliance              Amended.
                                 Certification.
3745-14-05....................  NOX Allowance           Rescinded.
                                 Allocations.

3745-14-06....................  The NOX Allowance       Rescinded.
                                 Tracking System.
3745-14-07....................  NOX Allowance           Rescinded.
                                 Transfers.
3745-14-08....................  Monitoring and          Amended.
                                 Reporting.
3745-14-09....................  NOX Budget Opt-in       Rescinded.
                                 Units.
3745-14-10....................  Alternative Compliance  Rescinded.
                                 Plans.
3745-14-11....................  Portland Cement Kilns.  No change.
3745-14-12....................  Stationary Internal     No change.
                                 Combustion Engines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, these amendments include: Moving the statewide
NOX budgets for large EGUs and large non-EGUs from OAC rule
3745-14-05, which is being rescinded, to OAC rule 3745-14-01; adding
provisions requiring Ohio EPA to conduct an annual review to determine
if the statewide budget for large non-EGUs is met, and providing
procedures should the budget be exceeded; removing unit allowance
allocation and trading provisions; specifying non-EGU NOX
budget units subject to OAC Chapter 3745-14; updating the applicability
exception for EGUs to reference CSAPR instead of CAIR; removing the
retired unit exemption, as it is no longer applicable; removing
unnecessary definitions; adding a definition for ``designated
representative''; replacing ``NOX budget trading program''
with ``NOX budget program'' to reflect the absence of
trading; replacing ``NOX Authorized Account Representative''
with ``designated representative'', the term used in part 75
monitoring; updating referenced material; eliminating requirements for
a NOX budget permit to be included as a complete and
segregable portion of a title V or non-title V permit; requiring the
owner or operator of a NOX budget unit to submit an
application for a title V or non-title V operating permit for each
subject source; revising compliance certification provisions to remove
unnecessary provisions; eliminating the requirement for the compliance
certification to be submitted to EPA; updating monitoring and reporting
provisions, most notably to remove unnecessary references to opt-in
permits and early reduction credits; and eliminating NOX
budget opt-in provisions, as they are no longer applicable.
    Further, the state's regulations for participation in the CAIR
trading programs for SO2 and annual and ozone season
NOX were formerly established at OAC Chapter 3745-109.
Because EPA discontinued administration of the CAIR trading programs
after 2014, Ohio has rescinded these rules that can no longer be
implemented.
    First, EPA proposes to approve the rescission of the trading
program-related portions of Ohio's NOX Budget Trading
Program rules and all of Ohio's CAIR trading program regulations.
Because EPA no longer administers the NOX Budget Trading
Program and the CAIR trading programs, and therefore Ohio's own
regulations related to these trading programs cannot be implemented,
removing the trading program provisions of Ohio's NOX SIP
Call rules and all of the CAIR rules from the state's SIP will have no
consequences for any source's operations or emissions or for the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in any area, now or in the
future. Accordingly, removal of these rules does not impact the state's
continued compliance with section CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for any NAAQS.
    Further, EPA proposes to find that Ohio's revisions to OAC rules
3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08 are consistent with
Ohio's obligation to demonstrate continued compliance with
NOX SIP Call requirements for large non-EGUs and EPA's
discontinuation of the trading program under the NOX SIP
Call. Under the ongoing requirements of the NOX SIP Call,
the Ohio SIP must: (1) Include enforceable control measures for ozone
season NOX mass emissions from existing and new large EGUs
and large non-EGUs and (2) require those sources to monitor and report
ozone season NOX emissions, which may be in accordance with
part 75. See 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) and (i).
    With respect to the NOX SIP Call requirement that the
state have enforceable control measures to limit ozone season
NOX, Ohio is currently subject to the Federal CSAPR Update
trading program for ozone season NOX that addresses these
requirements for existing and new EGUs, but because Ohio's non-EGUs are
not subject to that CSAPR trading program, the state must meet this
requirement for non-EGUs through other SIP provisions. Ohio's revisions
to OAC rule 3745-14-01 prohibit ozone season NOX emissions
from existing and new large non-EGUs from exceeding 4,028 tons, the
portion of the state's NOX SIP Call budget assigned to large
non-EGUs. Under the revisions at OAC rule 3745-14-01, Ohio will conduct
an annual review to ensure that the most recent ozone season emissions
from large non-EGUs remain below the statewide budget. Emissions
reported to EPA from the state's large non-EGUs for the 2018 ozone
season were 543 tons, well below this limit.
    As to the requirement for sources to monitor and report ozone
season NOX emissions under the NOX SIP Call,
these SIP revisions would preserve the state's current requirements for
existing and new EGUs and non-EGUs to monitor and report their ozone
season NOX emissions, as required under the NOX
SIP Call. Ohio's revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14 continue to require
that non-EGUs monitor and report ozone season NOX emissions
under part 75, and the state's EGUs are subject to equivalent
monitoring requirements under the CSAPR federal trading programs. Thus,
the revisions to OAC Chapter 3745-14 and removal of OAC Chapter 3745-
109 proposed for approval into the SIP in this action will not
substantively alter the current monitoring requirements for any EGUs or
large non-EGUs in the state covered by the NOX SIP Call. If,
as anticipated, Ohio EPA submits to EPA a SIP revision that would make
other monitoring approaches available to large non-EGUs, the monitoring
requirements under the NOX SIP Call will be the subject of a
future rulemaking.
    As revised, OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04 and 3745-
14-08 meet the state's ongoing obligations under the NOX SIP
Call with respect to existing and new large non-EGUs. Specifically, the
revised rules meet the requirement under 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2) for
enforceable limits on the units' collective emissions of ozone season
NOX mass emissions and the requirement under 40 CFR
51.121(i)(1) for monitoring sufficient to ensure compliance with those
limits. The state's EGUs are currently complying with their analogous
NOX SIP Call requirements through participation in

the CSAPR Update trading program for ozone season NOX.
    EPA is proposing to find that Ohio EPA's revisions at OAC Chapter
3745-14 and removal of OAC Chapter 3745-109 are consistent with
applicable requirements under the CAA and the NOX SIP Call,
and EPA is therefore proposing to approve these changes into the Ohio
SIP.
    Additionally, the revisions at OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03,
and 3745-14-08 include minor amendments that were effective in 2015 and
2018 but were not submitted for SIP approval because they were not
substantive changes. EPA's approval of Ohio's revised rules with state-
effective date January 28, 2018, would also approve these minor
amendments into the SIP. These revisions include: Updating hyperlinks
and references, correcting typographical and formatting errors, and
clarifying procedures for permit applications.

B. Section 110(l) Demonstration

    Ohio EPA's submission includes a demonstration intended to show
that its SIP revision is approvable under Section 110(l) of the CAA;
such a demonstration is sometimes called an anti-backsliding
demonstration. Section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve a SIP
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable CAA
requirement. EPA will approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies
control measures in the SIP only after the state has demonstrated that
such removal or modification would not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA generally considers
whether the SIP revision would preserve or improve the status quo in
air quality.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's request to
approve updated rules related to the NOX SIP Call into its
SIP and to approve removal of CAIR rules from its SIP. This proposed
action would remove from the SIP certain provisions relating to the
NOX Budget Trading Program and replace those provisions with
new rules at OAC Chapter 3745-14 that address the NOX SIP
Call's requirements with respect to existing and new large non-EGUs in
a manner that does not rely on the administration of a trading program.
It would also remove the CAIR rules at OAC Chapter 3745-109.
    For the reasons explained below, EPA's proposed action to update
the provisions relating to the NOX Budget Trading Program
and NOX SIP call is in accordance with CAA section 110(l).
As explained above, EPA has not implemented the NOX Budget
Trading Program since 2009 and it could not be implemented in the
future. Moreover, this action would only remove the provisions that
implement the trading program. It would neither alter the
NOX SIP Call emission budgets that limit emissions in the
state nor alter the requirement for sources to monitor and report ozone
season NOX emissions under the NOX SIP Call. This
action would also add to the SIP a new enforceable measure to replace
the defunct NOX Budget Trading Program and ensure compliance
with the NOX SIP Call budgets. This new measure is
quantifiable, permanent, enforceable and contemporaneous. Importantly,
the new measure ensures compliance with the existing NOX SIP
Call budgets and thus will preserve the status quo in air quality. For
these reasons, we conclude that the revisions will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    Additionally, EPA's proposed action to remove the CAIR rules at OAC
Chapter 3745-109 is consistent with the requirements of CAA 110(l). As
explained above, EPA has not administered the CAIR trading programs
since 2015, when the CSAPR trading programs replaced the CAIR trading
programs. Likewise, the related provisions in Ohio's SIP have not been
implemented since 2015 and cannot be implemented now or in the future.
As such, removing the CAIR rules from the state's SIP will have no
consequences for any source's operations or emissions.
    Current emission levels in Ohio further demonstrate that the CAIR
trading programs are not influencing and would not influence affected
sources' operations. As shown in Table 2 below, current emissions
levels are significantly below the CAIR budgets even while the CAIR
trading programs are no longer being implemented.

                    Table 2--Comparison of Ohio CAIR Budgets and 2018 Emissions, in Tons \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   CAIR Phase 1    CAIR Phase 2        2018
                         Emissions type                               budget          budget         Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX ozone season................................................          49,694          43,975          17,949
NOX annual......................................................         108,667          90,556          50,629
SO2 annual......................................................         333,520         233,464          86,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ohio's budgets under CAIR are from EPA's approval of OAC Chapter 3745-109 into the SIP on September 25, 2009
  (74 FR 48857). Ozone season NOX budgets under CAIR are the combined EGU and non-EGU budgets. Emissions data
  from 2018 are from EPA's Air Markets Program Database at https://ampd.epa.gov.

    Importantly, EPA was obligated by the D.C. Circuit remand of CAIR
to promulgate a new rule to replace CAIR. EPA addressed this judicial
remand with the promulgation of CSAPR. EGUs in Ohio are subject to FIPs
requiring the sources to participate in annual NOX, annual
SO2, and ozone season NOX\4\ Federal trading
programs under CSAPR and the CSAPR Update that limit emissions from
such sources in the state. EGUs continue to be subject to part 75
monitoring requirements under the current CSAPR trading program rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The D.C. Circuit ultimately remanded Ohio's CSAPR Phase 2
budget for ozone season NOX, finding that the rulemaking
record did not support EPA's determination of a transport obligation
under the 1997 ozone NAAQS for Ohio. EME Homer City Generation,
L.P., v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 129-30 (2015). In response, EPA withdrew
Ohio's remanded budget in the CSAPR Update rulemaking; concurrently,
however, EPA promulgated a new emission budget to address the 2008
ozone NAAQS, which replaced the invalidated CSAPR budget intended to
address the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74524. Thus, EGUs in Ohio remain
subject to a CSAPR trading program for ozone-season NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve Ohio
EPA's SIP submission under section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio EPA's request to modify its SIP to
include the revisions at OAC Chapter 3745-14 and to remove OAC Chapter
3745-109.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference OAC rules 3745-14-01, 3745-14-03, 3745-14-04, and 3745-14-08,
with a state effective date of January 28, 2018. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).
    Also in this document, as described in the proposed amendments to
40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is proposing to remove
provisions of the EPA-Approved Illinois Regulations and Statutes from
the Illinois State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by
reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

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
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.

    Dated: June 13, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-13640 Filed 6-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 58837-58840]
[DOCID:fr17oc07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 10, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC07-136-000.
    Applicants: NRG Energy, Inc.; Long Beach Generation LLC; Long Beach
Peakers LLC.
    Description: NRG Energy, Inc et al., submit an application for
approval of the disposition of jurisdictional facilities pursuant to
section 203 of the Federal Power Act and requests for waivers.
    Filed Date: 09/27/2007.

    Accession Number: 20071001-0039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 18, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG08-2-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Wind Power Project LLC.
    Description: Notice of self-certification of exempt wholesale
generator status of Arlington Wind Power Project LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071008-5024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1053-020.
    Applicants: Maine Public Service Company.
    Description: Maine Public Service Company informs FERC of the
status of negotiations regarding its 6/15/07 informational filing
setting forth the changed open access tariff changes effective 6/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-1173-004; ER02-1336-004; ER06-1265-001.
    Applicants: Front Range Power Company, LLC; Vandolah Power Company,
LLC; Orlando CoGen Limited, L.P.
    Description: Front Range Power Company, LLC et al. submits its
Notice of Non-Material Change in Status in connection with the
acquisition by USB Americas etc. pursuant to Order 652.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-644-007.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC.
    Description: Informational filing of PSEG Energy Resources & Trade
LLC listing planned Project Investments and projected Project
Investment costs for CY 2008 with respect to PSEG Fossil LLC's
generating units.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071001-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 22, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1119-004.
    Applicants: Doswell Limited Partnership.
    Description: PJM and Doswell Limited Partnership, jointly,
submitted an Electric Refund Report pursuant to the July 5, 2007, FERC
order.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071008-5022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-615-014.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits proposed revisions to its Market Redesign and Technology
Upgrade to comply with the Paragraph 175 of the June 25 Order.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0041.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1178-003; ER06-1179-003
    Applicants: SEMASS Partnership
    Description: Change in status of SEMASS Partnership.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1260-001.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Northern Indiana Public Service Company submits an
application for expansion of prior limited waivers of codes of conduct
with Whiting Clean Energy Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071005-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1399-003.
    Applicants: Sunbury Generation LP.
    Description: Sunbury Generation L.P. submits a Notice of Change in
Status.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1102-003
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC responds to the notice of
deficiency issued by FERC on 9/5/07.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1144-001.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: American Transmission Company, LLC and the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc submit a revised Energy
Markets Tariff sheets in compliance with FERC's 9/7/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1249-002.
    Applicants: Lockport Energy Associates, L.P.
    Description: Lockport Energy Associates L.P. requests waiver of the
sixty day prior notice requirement to allow its tariff to become
effective on 10/9/07.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1250-001.
    Applicants: PowerGrid Systems, Inc.
    Description: PowerGrid Systems, Inc. submits a letter of
clarification in response to FERC's request for revisions and original
Sheet 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 to reflect the
requirements of Order 697.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071003-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 19, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1276-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Motion to Withdraw Filing of Service Agreement No.
1156 of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071005-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 17, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1331-001.
    Applicants: Indianapolis Power & Light Company.
    Description: Indianapolis Power & Light Company submits revisions
to IPL Rate Schedule FERC 21.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.
    Docket Numbers: ER07-1356-001.
    Applicants: BE Alabama LLC.
    Description: BE Alabama LLC submits corrected Revised Substitute
Original Sheet 1 and 2 to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1
to replace the 9/7/07 filing of a notice of succession, effective date
of 11/6/07.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1358-001.
    Applicants: BE Louisiana LLC.
    Description: BE Louisiana, LLC submits Revised Substitute Original
Sheet to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 to replace the
tariff sheets submitted on 9/7/07 with notice of succession etc.
pursuant to Order 697.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.

    Accession Number: 20071009-0162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1386-001.
    Applicants: Tatanka Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to application of Tatanka Wind Power LLC for
order accepting market-based rate tariff, granting authorizations and
blanket authority, and waiving certain requirements.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-17-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits an amended
Manzana Wind Project Engineering Design, and Procurement Letter
Agreement for Early Interconnection Facilities with PPM Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071004-0141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-18-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Notice of Termination of their
Rate Schedule 418 with Public Utility District 1 of Clark County, WA.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071004-0142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-19-000.
    Applicants: Energy Algorithms, LLC.
    Description: Energy Algorithms, LLC submits petition for acceptance
of FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 10/03/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071004-0143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 24, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-22-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits several revisions to
Schedule 2 of the Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071005-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-23-000.
    Applicants: Massie Power LLC.
    Description: Massie Power, LLC submits their FERC Electric Rate
Schedule 1 under which they will engage in wholesale electric power and
energy transactions as marketer.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071005-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-25-000; ER08-26-000.
    Applicants: Ocean State Power; Ocean State Power II.
    Description: Ocean State Power and Ocean State Power II submits
their application for an order accepting rates, OSP FERC Electric
Tariff, Original Volume 1 et al.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071005-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-27-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation submits
Original Service Agreement 1159 with Lockport Energy Associates, LP
under the Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 10/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-28-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc submits revisions to Original
Sheet 22A et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Eighth Revised Volume 7.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-29-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits filing and
acceptance amendments to two interconnection Agreements with Northern
California Power Agency.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-30-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corp submits a contract with
Forward Energy LLC and on 10/9/07 submit the execution pages of the
Integration Contract between itself and Forward Energy, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007; 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0039; 20071010-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-31-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc, on behalf of Entergy Gulf States
Inc et al. submits an agreement under Service Schedule MSS-4 of the
Entergy System Agreement.
    Filed Date: 10/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071010-0040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 26, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC08-1-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Bank Limited.
    Description: Macquarie Notice of Self-Certification of Foreign
Utility Company Status.
    Filed Date: 10/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 31, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-2-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Kansas City Power & Light
Company.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071009-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 30, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20391 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11720-11724]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03685]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68912; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Exchange
Rule 7.11 To Establish Rules To Comply With the Requirements of the
Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Submitted to the
Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS

February 12, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on January 31, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7.11 to establish
rules to comply with the requirements of Plan To Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 7.11 to establish
rules to comply with the requirements of the Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility submitted to the Commission pursuant to
Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Plan''). The Exchange
proposes to adopt the changes for a pilot period that coincides with
the pilot period for the Plan, which is currently scheduled as a one-
year pilot to begin on April 8, 2013.
Background
    Since May 6, 2010, when the markets experienced excessive
volatility in an abbreviated time period, i.e., the ``flash crash,''
the equities exchanges and FINRA have implemented market-wide measures
designed to restore investor confidence by reducing the potential for
excessive market volatility. Among the measures adopted include pilot
plans for stock-by-stock trading pauses \4\ and related changes to the
equities market clearly erroneous execution rules \5\ and

more stringent equities market maker quoting requirements.\6\ On May
31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan, as amended, on a one-year
pilot basis.\7\ In addition, the Commission approved changes to the
equities market-wide circuit breaker rules on a pilot basis to coincide
with the pilot period for the Plan.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 7.11.
    \5\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 7.10.
    \6\ See, e.g., Exchange Rule 7.23.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving,
on a Pilot Basis, the National Market System Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67090 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33531 (June 6, 2012) (SR-BATS-2011-038; SR-BYX-2011-
025; SR-BX-2011-068; SR-CBOE-2011-087; SR-C2-2011-024; SR-CHX-2011-
30; SR-EDGA-2011-31; SR-EDGX-2011-30; SR-FINRA-2011-054; SR-ISE-
2011-61; SR-NASDAQ-2011-131; SR-NSX-2011-11; SR-NYSE-2011-48; SR-
NYSEAmex-2011-73; SR-NYSEArca-2011-68; SR-Phlx-2011-129).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks
from occurring outside of specified Price Bands.\9\ As described more
fully below, the requirements of the Plan are coupled with Trading
Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price moves (as opposed to
erroneous trades or momentary gaps in liquidity). All trading centers
in NMS Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those
operated by members of Participants, are required to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the requirements specified in the
Plan.\10\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, Price Bands
consisting of a Lower Price Band and an Upper Price Band for each NMS
Stock are calculated by the Processors.\11\ When the National Best Bid
(Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band, the Processors
shall disseminate such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate
flag identifying it as unexecutable. When the National Best Bid (Offer)
is equal to the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Processors shall
distribute such National Best Bid (Offer) with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation.\12\ All trading centers in
NMS Stocks must maintain written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to prevent the display of offers below the Lower
Price Band and bids above the Upper Price Band for NMS Stocks.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the Processor shall display an offer
below the Lower Price Band or a bid above the Upper Price Band, but
with a flag that it is non-executable. Such bids or offers shall not be
included in the National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
    \10\ The Exchange is a Participant in the Plan.
    \11\ See Section V(A) of the Plan.
    \12\ See Section VI(A) of the Plan.
    \13\ See Section VI(A)(3) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trading in an NMS Stock immediately enters a Limit State if the
National Best Offer (Bid) equals but does not cross the Lower (Upper)
Price Band.\14\ Trading for an NMS stock exits a Limit State if, within
15 seconds of entering the Limit State, all Limit State Quotations were
executed or canceled in their entirety. If the market does not exit a
Limit State within 15 seconds, then the Primary Listing Exchange would
declare a five-minute trading pause pursuant to Section VII of the LULD
Plan, which would be applicable to all markets trading the
security.\15\ In addition, the Plan defines a Straddle State as when
the National Best Bid (Offer) is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price
Band and the NMS Stock is not in a Limit State. For example, assume the
Lower Price Band for an NMS Stock is $9.50 and the Upper Price Band is
$10.50, such NMS stock would be in a Straddle State if the National
Best Bid were below $9.50, and therefore non-executable, and the
National Best Offer were above $9.50 (including a National Best Offer
that could be above $10.50). If an NMS Stock is in a Straddle State and
trading in that stock deviates from normal trading characteristics, the
Primary Listing Exchange may declare a trading pause for that NMS
Stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Section VI(B)(1) of the Plan.
    \15\ The primary listing market would declare a trading pause in
an NMS Stock; upon notification by the primary listing market, the
Processor would disseminate this information to the public. No
trades in that NMS Stock could occur during the trading pause, but
all bids and offers may be displayed. See Section VII(A) of the
Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendment to Rule 7.11
    The Exchange is required by the Plan to establish, maintain, and
enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to
comply with the limit up-limit down and trading pause requirements
specified in the Plan. In response to the new Plan, the Exchange
proposes to amend its Rules accordingly.
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.11(a)(1) to define that
``Plan'' means the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission Pursuant to Rule
608 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Exhibit A to Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012),
77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012), as it may be amended from time to time. The
Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.11(a)(2) to state that the Exchange is
a Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the
Plan, which establishes procedures to address extraordinary volatility
in NMS Stocks. In addition, proposed Rule 7.11(a)(1) provides that all
capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Rule shall have the
meanings set forth in the Plan or Exchange rules, as applicable.
    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.11(a)(3) to provide that ETP
Holders shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Plan. The
Exchange believes that this requirement will help ensure compliance by
its members with the provisions of the Plan as required pursuant to
Section II(B) of the Plan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Section II(B) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.11(a)(4) to provide that
Exchange systems shall not display or execute buy (sell) interest above
(below) the Upper (Lower) Price Bands, unless such interest is
specifically exempted under the Plan. The Exchange believes that this
requirement is reasonably designed to enable compliance with the limit
up-limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan, by
preventing executions outside the Price Bands as required pursuant to
Section VI(A)(1) of the Plan.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section VI(A)(1) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes Rules regarding the treatment of certain
trading interest on the Exchange in order to prevent executions outside
the Price Bands and to comply with the new LULD Plan. In particular,
the Exchange proposes to add Rule 7.11(a)(5) that provides that
Exchange systems shall cancel buy (sell) interest that is priced or
could be executed above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band.\18\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following provision regarding
the canceling of certain trading interest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sell short orders that are not eligible for repricing
instructions will be treated as any other order pursuant to Rule
7.11(a)(5). See proposed Exchange Rule 7.11(a)(6)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Marketable Trading Interest. Incoming marketable interest,
including market orders, IOC orders, and limit orders, shall be
executed, or if applicable, routed to an away market, to the fullest
extent possible, subject to Rules 7.31(a)(1)-(3) (Trading Collars for
market orders) and 7.31(b)(2) (price check for limit orders), at prices
at or within the Price Bands. Any unexecuted portion of such incoming
marketable interest that cannot be executed at prices at or within the
Price Bands shall be cancelled and the ETP Holder shall be notified of
the reason for the cancellation.

    The Exchange believes this provision is reasonably designed to
prevent executions outside the Price Bands as required by the limit up-
limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan. The
Exchange believes that allowing marketable trading interest to execute
to the extent possible within the Price Bands and cancelling any
unexecuted portion of such interest that cannot be executed at prices
at or within the Price Bands, is reasonably designed to prevent
executions in violation with the limit up-limit down and trading pause
requirements. The Exchange believes that adding certainty to the
treatment of marketable trading interest in these situations will
encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity to the
Exchange and thus promote a fair and orderly market.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add 7.11(a)(6) that provides
that Exchange systems shall reprice certain specified limit orders for
which ETP Holders have entered an instruction for the Exchange to
reprice a buy (sell) order that is priced above (below) the Upper
(Lower) Price Band to the Upper (Lower) Price Band rather than cancel
the order. Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following provisions
regarding the repricing certain specified limit orders:
     Instructions to Reprice. Instructions to reprice eligible
orders shall be applicable to both incoming and resting orders. If the
Price Bands move and the original limit price of a repriced order is at
or within the Price Bands, Exchange systems shall reprice such limit
order to its original limit price.
     Time Priority of Repriced Orders. Each time an eligible
order is repriced, it shall receive a new time priority.
     Eligible Limit Order Types. The following order types are
eligible for repricing instructions: Adding Liquidity Only Orders (Rule
7.31(nn)), Discretion Limit Order (Rule 7.31(h)(2)(B)), Discretionary
Order (Rule 7.31(h)(2)), Limit Order (7.31(b)), Passive Discretionary
Order (Rule 7.31(h)(2)(A)), PNP ISO (Rule 7.31(w)), PNP Order (Rule
7.31(w)), Proactive if Locked Reserve Order (Rule 7.31(hh)), Random
Reserve Order (Rule 7.31(h)(3)(B)), Reserve Order (Rule 7.31(h)(3)),
Sweep Reserve Order (Rule 7.31(h)(3)(A)), Primary Until 9:45 Order
(Rule 7.31(oo)), Primary After 3:55 Order (Rule 7.31(pp)), and Primary
Sweep Order (Rule 7.31(kk)).
     Sell Short Orders. For an order type eligible for
repricing instructions that is also a short sell order, during a Short
Sale Price Test, as set forth in Rule 7.16(f), short sale orders priced
below the Lower Price Band shall be repriced to the higher of the Lower
Price Band or the Permitted Price, as defined in Rule 7.16(f)(ii). Sell
short orders that are not eligible for repricing instructions will be
treated as any other order pursuant to Rule 7.11(a)(5).
     Original Order Instructions. Any interest repriced
pursuant to Exchange Rule 7.11(a)(6) shall return to its original order
instructions for purposes of a re-opening transaction following a
Trading Pause.
    The Exchange believes these provisions are reasonably designed to
prevent executions outside the Price Bands as required by the limit up-
limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan. The
Exchange believes that allowing certain specified limit orders for
which ETP Holders have entered instructions that would otherwise
execute outside the Prices Bands to reprice and receive a new time
stamp, is reasonably designed to prevent executions in violation of the
limit up-limit down and trading pause requirements. The Exchange notes
that the receiving of a new timestamp instead of retaining the original
during repricing should have no impact on the priority amongst the
orders repriced, because their ranking after repricing will be in the
same time order as before repricing, based on the order time when
initially entered.\19\ Similarly, when orders repriced pursuant to
proposed Rule 7.11(a)(6) return to their original order instructions
for purposes of the re-opening transaction following a Trading Pause,
their ranking will continue to be in the same time order as before
repricing, based on the order time when initially entered.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Example 1--the Exchange receives three limit orders to buy
that are eligible for repricing instructions--A, B, C. The orders
are received in that time order. Order A and B, are priced outside
of the Price Bands (higher than the Upper Band), but Order C has a
limit price within the Price Bands. Orders A and B will be repriced
to the Upper Band and receive a new timestamp. The new order
priority would be A, B, C, because A and B are repriced sequentially
in the order originally received at the price of the Upper Band,
while Order C has a lower limit price within the Price Bands.
    However, the Exchange also notes that because repriced orders
will receive a new time priority, such orders would not necessarily
retain their previous priority in the order queue when compared to
orders that do not get repriced. A later arriving order that is
priced at the Price Bands could have time priority compared to an
order that was repriced pursuant to the order instructions because
the original order pricing was outside the Price Bands.
    Example 2--the Exchange receives three limit orders to buy that
are eligible for repricing instructions--A, B, C. The orders are
received in that time order. Order A and B, are priced outside of
the Price Bands (higher than the Upper Band), but Order C has a
limit price at the Upper Band. The new order priority would be C, A,
B, because C is not getting repriced it keeps its original
timestamp, while Orders A and B are repriced sequentially in the
order originally received at the price of the Upper Band.
    \20\ Assume the same scenario as Example 1 in note 18. Order A
and B, are priced outside of the Price Bands (higher than the Upper
Band), but Order C has a limit price within the Price Bands. Orders
A and B will be repriced to the Upper Band and receive a new time
stamp. With the new order priority being A, B, C, because A and B
are repriced sequentially in the order originally received at the
price of the Upper Band, while Order C has a lower limit price
within the Price Bands. After a Trading Pause, Orders A and B return
to their original price pursuant to their original order
instructions. The new order priority for the reopening auction will
be A, B, C, because A and B are repriced sequentially in the order
originally received at the higher original limit price, while C has
a lower limit price.
    Assume the same scenario as Example 2. Order A and B, are priced
outside of the Price Bands (higher than the Upper Band), but Order C
has a limit price at the Upper Band. With the new order priority
would be C, A, B, because C is not getting repriced it keeps its
original timestamp, while Orders A and B are repriced sequentially
in the order originally received at the price of the Upper Band.
After a Trading Pause, Orders A and B return to their original price
pursuant to their original order instructions. The new order
priority for the reopening auction will be A, B, C, because A and B
are repriced sequentially in the order originally received at the
higher original limit price, while C has a lower limit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal provides a transparent
methodology that encourages participants to price orders within the
Price Bands and treats repriced orders in a fair and consistent manner.
The Exchange believes that adding certainty to the treatment and
priority of trading interest in these situations will encourage market
participants to continue to provide liquidity to the Exchange and thus
promote a fair and orderly market.
    The Exchange proposes Rule 7.11(a)(7) that provides that the
Exchange systems shall not route buy (sell) interest to an away market
displaying a sell (buy) quote that is above (below) the Upper (Lower)
Price Band. However, the Exchange shall route orders with a primary
market modifier regardless of price, specifically the Primary Only
Order (Rule 7.31(x)), Primary Until 9:45 Order (Rule 7.31(oo)), Primary
After 3:55 Order (Rule 7.31(pp)), and Primary Sweep Order (Rule
7.31(kk)). Since the Exchange does not control the timing of the
execution of the order on the primary market, it would be difficult for
the Exchange to anticipate when the order may violate a Price Band when
such order is on the Primary Market. For these specific orders, the
Exchange believes that the primary market is best positioned to prevent
an execution of the order outside the Price Bands. The Exchange
believes that this provision is reasonably designed to prevent an
execution outside the Price Bands in a

manner that promotes compliance with the limit up-limit down and
trading pause requirements specified in the Plan.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes Rule 7.11(a)(8) that provides
that the Exchange may declare a Trading Pause for a NMS Stock listed on
the Exchange when (i) the National Best Bid (Offer) is below (above)
the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not in a Limit State;
and (ii) trading in that NMS Stock deviates from normal trading
characteristics. An Exchange Official may declare such Trading Pause
during a Straddle State if such Trading Pause would support the Plan's
goal to address extraordinary market volatility.\21\ The Exchange
believes that this provision is reasonably designed to comply with
Section VII(A)(2) of the Plan.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange will develop written policies and procedures
to determine when to declare a Trading Pause in such circumstances.
    \22\ See Section VII(A)(2) of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Plan's requirements for the Exchange to
establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with the trading pause requirements
specified in the Plan, the Exchanges also proposes to amend the Rules
regarding Trading Pauses to correspond with the LULD Plan. The Exchange
proposes to provide that during Phase 1 of the Plan, a Trading Pause in
Tier 1 NMS Stocks subject to the requirements of the Plan, shall be
subject to Plan requirements and Rule 7.11(b)(2); a Trading Pause in
Tier 1 NMS Stocks not yet subject to the requirements of the Plan shall
be subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)-(6) of this Rule;
and a Trading Pause in Tier 2 NMS Stocks shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Rule 7.11(b)(1)(B)-(6). The proposed change
will allow the Trading Pause requirements in Rule 7.11(b)(1) to
continue to apply to Tier 1 NMS Stocks during the beginning of Phase I
until they are subject to the Plan requirements. Once the Plan has been
fully implemented and all NMS Stocks are subject to the Plan, a Trading
Pause under the Plan shall be subject to Exchange Rule 7.11(b)(2).
These proposed changes are designed to comply with Section VIII of the
Plan to ensure implementation of the Plan's requirements.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Section VIII of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\25\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system by ensuring that the Exchange
systems will not display or execute trading interest outside the Price
Bands as required by the limit up-limit down and trading pause
requirements specified in the Plan. Specifically, the proposal is
reasonably designed to ensure that the trading interest on the Exchange
is either repriced or canceled in a manner that promotes just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to, and perfects
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.
Further, the proposal is designed to enable market participants to
continue to trade NMS Stocks within the Price Bands in compliance with
the Plan with certainty on how certain orders and trading interest will
be treated. Thus, reducing uncertainty regarding the treatment and
priority of trading interest with the Price Bands should help encourage
market participants to continue to provide liquidity during times of
extraordinary market volatility that occur during Regular Trading
Hours.
    The proposal also promotes just and equitable principles of trade
and removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and
open market and a national market system by ensuring that orders in NMS
Stocks are not routed to other exchanges in situations where an
execution may occur outside Price Bands, and thereby is reasonably
designed to prevent an execution outside the Price Bands in a manner
that promotes compliance with the limit up-limit down and trading pause
requirements specified in the Plan.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are
being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the limit up-
limit down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan, of
which other equities exchanges are also Participants of. Other
competing equity exchanges are subject to the same limit up-limit down
and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan. Thus, the
proposed changes will not impose any burden on competition while
providing certainty of treatment and execution of trading interest on
the Exchange to market participants during periods of extraordinary
volatility in NMS stock while in compliance with the limit up-limit
down and trading pause requirements specified in the Plan.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\27\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \28\ to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

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

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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-13. 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 No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-13 and should be
submitted on or before March 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-03685 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46123-46125]
[DOCID:fr11au06-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0495; FRL-8086-1]

Sanitizers with No Food-Contact Uses in Registered Pesticide
Products; Revocation of Tolerance Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking eight exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance that are associated with six food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions because these specific tolerance exemptions correspond to
uses no longer current or registered in the United States under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and
because there are insufficient data to make the determination of safety
required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). These
ingredients are subject to reassessment by August 2006 under section
408(q) of FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996
(FQPA). The eight tolerance exemptions are considered ``reassessed''
for purposes of FFDCA's section 408(q) and count as a tolerance
reassessment toward the August 2006 review deadline.

DATES: This rule is effective 90 days from August 11, 2006. Objections
and requests for hearings must be received on or before October 10,
2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in
40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit V. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0495. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Bailey, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, 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?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may

file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0495 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 10, 2006.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0495, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33416-3419; FRL-
8072-8), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke 10 exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance that are associated with 7 ingredients
because those substances are no longer contained in pesticide products.
The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period that invited public
comment for consideration and for support of tolerance exemption
retention under the FFDCA standards.
    EPA received one comment expressing a need to retain two exemptions
and an interest in providing data to support these exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance for one ingredient. Therefore, in this final
rule, EPA is revoking eight exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance that are associated with six ingredients because these
specific tolerance exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or
registered under FIFRA in the United States. The tolerance exemptions
revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of
the relevant pesticide chemicals in or on domestically treated
commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United
States.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    This final rule is issued pursuant to section 408(d) of FFDCA (21
U.S.C. 346a(d)). Section 408 of FFDCA authorizes the establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance,
modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed foods. Without a tolerance or tolerance exemption, food
containing pesticide residues is considered to be unsafe and therefore
``adulterated'' under section 402(a) of the FFDCA. If food containing
pesticide residues is found to be adulterated, the food may not be
distributed in interstate commerce (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 342 (a)).
    EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances and tolerance
exemptions for residues of pesticide chemicals on crops for which FIFRA
registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore
no longer be used in the United States. EPA has historically been
concerned that retention of tolerances and tolerance exemptions that
are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may
encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Nonetheless,
EPA will establish and maintain tolerances and tolerance exemptions
even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances,
which EPA refers to as ``import tolerances,'' are necessary to allow
importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide
residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require
these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances and tolerance exemptions for unregistered pesticide
chemicals in order to prevent potential misuse.

C. When do These Actions Become Effective?

    These actions become effective 90 days following publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register to ensure that all affected parties
receive notice of EPA's actions. For this rule, the revocations will
affect exemptions for active or inert ingredients which have not been
used in registered products, in some cases, for many years. The Agency
believes that existing stocks of pesticide products containing active
or inert ingredients covered by the exemptions have been completely
exhausted and that treated commodities have had sufficient time for
passage through the channels of trade. However, if EPA is presented
with information that existing stocks would still be available and that
information is verified, the Agency will consider extending the
expiration date of the exemption. If you have comments regarding
existing stocks and whether the effective date allows sufficient time
for treated commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit
comments as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticide chemicals subject to this final rule,
and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance exemption
revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as
established by the FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these
pesticide chemicals in or on such food shall not render the food
adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and
Drug Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide chemical at a time and in a manner that was lawful under
FIFRA, and
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under an
exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully
treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide
chemical was applied to such food.

D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

    By law, EPA is required by August 2006, to reassess the tolerances
and exemptions from tolerances that were in existence on August 2,
1996. This document revokes eight tolerance exemptions for food-contact
surface sanitizing solutions under FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by
FQPA in 1996.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule, EPA is revoking specific tolerance exemptions
established under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has exempted this type of action from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance,
this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances
might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available
information concerning the pesticide listed in this rule, the Agency
hereby certifies that this final action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available
data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is
a reasonable international supply of food not treated with pesticides
containing the ingredients being revoked in this notice. Furthermore,
for the pesticide named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no
extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations
that would change the EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency
has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States, on the relationship between the national government
and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive
Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final
rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and
food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA.
For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this final rule
does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This final rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Antimicrobial, Sanitizers, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 2, 2006.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

Sec.  180.940  [Amended]

0
2. Section 180.940 is amended as follows:
0
i. In the table to paragraph (a) by removing the entry for ``Potassium
Permanganate'' (CAS Reg. No.7722-64-7).
0
ii. In the table to paragraph (b) by removing the entry for ``Sodium
mono-and didodecylphenoxy-benzenedisulfonate'' (CAS Reg. No. None).
0
iii. In the table to paragraph (c) by removing the entries for ``Alkyl
(C12-C15) monoether of mixed (ethylene-propylene)
polyalkylene glycol, cloud point of 70-77 [deg]C in 1% aqueous
solution, average molecular weight (in amu), 807;'' (CAS Reg. No.
None); ``Benzensulfonamide, N-chloro-4-methyl, sodium salt;'' (CAS Reg.
No. 127-65-1); ``Benzenesulfonic acid, oxybis[dodecyl-'' (CAS Reg. No.
30260-73-2); ``Calcium bromide'' (CAS Reg. No. 7789-41-5); ``Potassium
Permanganate'' (CAS Reg. No.7722-64-7); and ``Sodium mono-and
didodecylphenoxy-benzenedisulfonate'' (CAS Reg. No. None)

[FR Doc. E6-13173 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S