[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53178-53179]
[DOCID:fr15se08-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[EPA-HQ-OW-2007-93; FRL-8716-1]

Withdrawal of Federal Antidegradation Policy for All Waters of
the United States Within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw the federal antidegradation
policy for all waters of the United States within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. We will withdraw the federal antidegradation policy to
allow Pennsylvania to implement its own antidegradation policy.
Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that its antidegradation
policy protects all waters of the United States within the Commonwealth
at a level consistent with the federal requirements. Therefore, the
federal antidegradation policy is redundant. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we are withdrawing the
federal antidegradation policy for waters within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If
we received no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this
proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by October 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2007-0093, by mail to: Water Docket, USEPA, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Whitehead at EPA
Headquarters, Office of Water, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mail Code
4305T, Washington, DC 20460 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Denise Hakowski at EPA Region
3, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3WP30, Philadelphia, PA 19103
(telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail:
hakowski.denise@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final rule that is located in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register publication.

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to take action on withdrawing the federal
antidegradation policy for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because
Pennsylvania has adequately demonstrated that its antidegradation
policy protects all waters of the United States at a level consistent
with the federal requirements. We have published a direct final rule
withdrawing the federal antidegradation policy for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this
withdrawal in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposal rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
    We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For the
various statutes and executive orders that require findings for
rulemaking, EPA incorporates the findings from the direct final
rulemaking into this companion notice for the purpose of providing
public notice and opportunity for comment. For further information,
please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this
document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Antidegradation, Water quality standards.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-21463 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 79539-79541]
[DOCID:fr29de08-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Approval on
a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Spaceport America Commercial Launch
Site, Sierra County, NM

AGENCY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Approval of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the
availability of the ROD for the Spaceport America Commercial Launch
Site, Sierra County, New Mexico. The ROD provides the FAA's final
environmental determination and approval to support

the issuance of a Launch Site Operator License to the New Mexico
Spaceport Authority (NMSA) to operate Spaceport America, as proposed in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) published in November
2008.
    The ROD provides a description of the applicant's Proposed Action
and reasonable alternatives, and identifies the FAA's preferred and the
environmentally preferred alternative. It includes a discussion of
environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action in each
resource area, as analyzed in the Final EIS. The ROD summarizes the
mitigation and enforcement actions that would be made the subject of
the terms and conditions of the Launch Site Operator License issued to
NMSA, as well as other conservation and enhancement measures described
in the Final EIS and presented for consideration.
    The Final EIS, prepared by the FAA for the Spaceport America
Commercial Launch Site, serves as the primary reference and basis for
preparation of the ROD. The Final EIS documents the analysis of
environmental consequences associated with the construction and
operation of Spaceport America and reasonable alternatives to the
Proposed Action. The FAA is the lead Federal agency responsible for the
preparation of the EIS and ROD for the proposed Spaceport America.
Cooperating agencies include the Bureau of Land Management, the
National Park Service, the U.S. Army's White Sands Missile Range
(WSMR), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The EIS
and ROD were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.),
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FAA Order
1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures.
    The FAA has posted the ROD on the FAA Web site at http://
ast.faa.gov. In addition, paper copies of the ROD will be sent out with
the signed Programmatic Agreement to persons and agencies on the
distribution list (found in Chapter 8 of the Final EIS). The
Programmatic Agreement addresses significant impacts to Historical,
Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources from the Proposed
Action.
    Additional Information: Under the Proposed Action, and the
alternative selected by the FAA for implementation, the FAA would issue
a Launch Site Operator License to NMSA that would allow the State to
operate the proposed Spaceport America Commercial Launch Site. The EIS
analyzed launching both horizontal and vertical launch vehicle (LV)
launches. Horizontal LVs would launch and land at the proposed
Spaceport America airfield. Vertical LVs would launch from Spaceport
America and either land at Spaceport America or at WSMR. Rocket-powered
vertical landing vehicles would land on either the Spaceport America
airfield or a vertical launch/landing pad.
    In addition, the Proposed Action includes construction of
facilities needed to support the licensed launch activities at the
proposed launch site. Development of Spaceport America infrastructure
would occur in two phases. The total area of land disturbed by
construction would be approximately 970 acres; the total area of the
final facilities footprint would be approximately 145 acres. The
proposed Spaceport America boundary would encompass approximately 26
square miles. This area currently contains both State and private land.
    Operational activities in support of the Proposed Action would
begin as soon as the phased construction activities related to the
Proposed Action were completed. The operational activities that may
have environmental consequences and would support, either directly or
indirectly, licensed launches include:

     Transport of Launch Vehicles to the Assembly or Staging
Areas
     Transport and Storage of Rocket Propellants and Other
Fuels
     Launch, Landing and Recovery Activities for Horizontal
Vehicles
     Launch, Landing and Recovery Activities for Vertical
Vehicles
     Other Activities
    --Ground-Based Tests and Static Firings
    --Training
    --X Prize Cup Events

    The FAA identified two alternatives and the No Action Alternative
to the Proposed Action, which are considered in the Final EIS. Under
Alternative 1, FAA would consider issuing a Launch Site Operator
License only for the operation of a launch site to support horizontal
launches. This is considered a feasible alternative because a
significant number of launches of horizontal LVs are projected, and
most X Prize Cup activities would be located at the airfield.
    Under Alternative 2, FAA would consider issuing a Launch Site
Operator License only for the operation of a launch site to support
vertical launches. This is considered a feasible alternative because a
significant number of launches are projected to be of vertical LVs.
    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a Launch
Site Operator License to the NMSA. Subsequently, the need to support
commercial launches and host the X Prize Cup would not be met by the
State of New Mexico.
    Resource areas were considered to provide a context for
understanding and assessing the potential environmental effects of the
Proposed Action, with attention focused on key issues. The resource
areas considered included compatible land use; Section 4(f) lands and
farmlands; noise; visual resources and light emissions; historical,
architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources; air quality;
water quality, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, coastal resources, and
floodplains; fish, wildlife, and plants; hazardous materials, pollution
prevention, and solid waste; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and
children's environmental health and safety risks; and energy supply and
natural resources. Construction impacts and secondary (induced) impacts
are also considered. Additional analyses considered in the appendices
include geology and soils; mineral resources; air space; health and
safety; and transportation.
    As stated in the ROD and supported by the Final EIS, Alternatives 1
and 2 and the No Action Alternative would result in restrictive
licensing that would impede the FAA's ability to assist the commercial
space transportation industry in meeting projected demand for services
and expansion into new markets. The Preferred Alternative, the
applicant's Proposed Action, would allow the greatest development and
growth of the U.S. commercial space launch industry. In addition,
although implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in
slightly greater environmental impacts than the overall impacts
associated with the alternatives including the No Action Alternative,
the impacts are still expected to be less than significant, in all but
one resource area. Therefore, the FAA has selected the Preferred
Alternative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey M. Zee (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 18, 2008.
Michael McElligott,
Manager, Space Systems Development Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-30845 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 86 (Thursday, May 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24397-24399]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC21-57-000.
    Applicants: Exelon Generation Company, LLC.
    Description: Response of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al. to
April 16, 2021 letter requesting additional information under.
    Filed Date: 4/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210429-5376.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2289-010; ER10-2564-010; ER10-2600-010; EL21-
48-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc.,
UniSource Energy Development Company.

    Description: Response to March 1, 2021 Show Cause Order of Tucson
Electric Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210429-5379.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1821-004.
    Applicants: Panda Stonewall LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing in Docket ER17-
1821 to be effective 6/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5380.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-195-002.
    Applicants: LS Power Grid California, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: LS Power Grid California Deferral
Termination Request to be effective 12/23/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1351-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
American Transmission Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-04-30_SA 2805 ATC-Rock Energy
Cooperative Substitute 1st Rev CFA to be effective 5/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5256.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1352-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-04-30 OATT-Att W-E&P-
FormofSvcAgrmt-NSP-Amnd to be effective 6/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1585-001.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-04-30 OATT-Att W-E&P-
FormofSvcAgrmt-SPS-Amnd to be effective 6/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1797-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-04-29_Revisions to Rate
Schedule 1 to Establish an Evergreen Term to be effective 6/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210429-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1798-000.
    Applicants: Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Second Revised ESA
to be effective 3/31/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1799-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment PASNY Tariff
Separate Site 4-30-2-21 to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1800-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: RS 37-SD 2nd Rev--Emergency
Tie Agreement with East River Electric Power Co-op to be effective 7/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1801-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Q1 2021 Quarterly Filing of
City and County of San Francisco's WDT SA (SA 275) to be effective 3/
31/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1802-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Component of
Enhancements to Stability Limits Process to be effective 6/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1803-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2142R4 Golden Spread
Electric Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1804-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: May 2021 Membership Filing
to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1805-000.
    Applicants: Upper Missouri G. & T. Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Rate Schedules FERC
Nos. 1,2,3,5, and 11 to be effective 6/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1806-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Clarify Surplus
Interconnection Service Timing to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1807-000.
    Applicants: Hill Top Energy Center LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Tariff
Application to be effective 6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1808-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 319
between Tri-State and Wheat Belt to be effective 2/26/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1808-001.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Rate Schedule FERC No.
319 to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5262.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1809-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Rate
Schedule FERC No. 115 to be effective 2/10/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5231.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1810-000.
    Applicants: Marco DM Holdings, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Change in Seller Category
Status to be effective 6/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1811-000.
    Applicants: Northern Pass Transmission LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Northern Pass Transmission LLC
Notice of Cancellation to be effective 5/1/2021.

    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1812-000.
    Applicants: Tampa Electric Company.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Rate Schedule No.
103_MorganRD_DaleMabry Interconnection to be effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1813-000.
    Applicants: Yellow Pine Energy Center I, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Yellow Pine Energy Center I,
LLC Application for MBR Authorization to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5283.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1814-000.
    Applicants: Yellow Pine Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Yellow Pine Energy Center II,
LLC Application for MBR Authorization to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1815-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF 2021 Annual Filing of
Cost Factor Updates to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5303.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1816-000.
    Applicants: KES Kingsburg, L.P.
    Description: Initial rate filing: KES Kingsburg LP RMR Filing to be
effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5351.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1817-000.
    Applicants: California Power Exchange Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Filing for Rate Period
39 to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5353.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1818-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Iris Solar, LLC, LBA
Agreement to be effective 5/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5354.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES21-42-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210429-5354.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/20/21.

    Docket Numbers: ES21-43-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities for Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    Docket Numbers: ES21-44-000.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/21/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 30, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09555 Filed 5-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71113-71115]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90310; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2020-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.31E

November 2, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on October 20, 2020, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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 Rule 7.31E to cancel ALO Orders that
lock displayed interest. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Rule 7.31E (Orders and Modifiers) to
provide that ALO Orders that lock displayed interest would be
cancelled. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules
7.31E(e)(2), which describes how the Exchange processes ALO Orders, and
7.31E(e)(3)(D), which describes how the Exchange processes Day ISO ALO
Orders. Currently, under Rule 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii), an arriving ALO
Order to buy (sell) with a limit price that would lock a displayed
order priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB) on the Exchange
Book will be assigned a working price and display price one minimum
price variation (``MPV'') below (above) the displayed order. Day ISO
ALO Orders that would lock displayed interest on the Exchange Book are
processed in the same manner.\4\ The Exchange proposes to amend these
rules to provide that arriving ALO and Day ISO ALO Orders with a limit
price that would lock displayed interest on the Exchange Book would be
cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete the portion
of Rule 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii) providing that an ALO Order that locks
displayed interest will be ``assigned a working price and display price
one MPV below (above) the displayed order on the Exchange Book'' and
instead provide that such order would be cancelled. In addition, to
simplify the rule text, the Exchange proposes to combine Rule
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii), as revised, into Rule 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(ii). Proposed
amended Rule 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(ii) would thus provide:

    If the limit price of the ALO Order to buy (sell) crosses the
working price of any displayed or non-displayed order on the
Exchange Book priced equal to or below (above) the PBO (PBB), it
will trade as the liquidity taker with such order(s). Any untraded
quantity of the ALO Order will have a working price equal to the PBO
(PBB) and a display price one MPV below (above) the PBO (PBB),
provided that if the limit price of the ALO Order to buy (sell)
locks the display price of any order ranked Priority 2--Display
Orders on the Exchange Book priced equal to or below (above) the PBO
(PBB), it will be cancelled.

    The Exchange also proposes the following conforming changes to
Rules 7.31E(e)(2)(B) and 7.31E(e)(2)(C) to reflect the proposed change
to how ALO Orders that lock displayed interest would be handled:
     The Exchange proposes to renumber current Rule
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iv) as 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii) to accommodate the proposed
combination of current Rules 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii), as described above.
     The Exchange proposes to replace introductory references
providing that an ALO Order will be ``priced'' or ``priced or trade, or
both,'' with the phrase ``will be processed'' in Rules 7.31E(e)(2)(B),
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iv)(a) (which would become Rule 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii)(a)
after renumbering), 7.31E(e)(2)(C), and 7.31E(e)(2)(C)(i). The Exchange
proposes to use the term ``processed'' because some ALO Orders would be
cancelled (and therefore not priced or traded).
     The Exchange proposes to renumber current Rule
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(v) as 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iv) to accommodate the proposed
combination of current Rules 7.31E(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
7.31E(e)(2)(B)(iii), as described above.
     The Exchange further proposes to revise Rule
7.31E(e)(2)(C)(i) to delete the reference to orders ranked Priority 2--
Display Orders because, as noted above, an ALO Order would no longer be
repriced based on contra-side Priority 2--Display Orders and instead
would be cancelled. Accordingly, the only time a resting ALO Order
would be repriced is if the contra-side PBBO re-prices.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D) to align the
rules governing Day ISO ALOs with the proposed changes to ALO Orders.
Currently, pursuant to Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii), if the limit price of
an arriving Day ISO ALO locks the display price of a displayed order on
the Exchange Book, it will be assigned a working price and display
price one MPV below (above) the price of the displayed order. As with
ALO Orders, the Exchange proposes to amend this rule to specify that
arriving Day ISO ALOs that lock displayed interest would be cancelled.
    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete the portion
of Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii) that provides that a Day ISO ALO that locks
displayed interest will be ``assigned a working price and display price
one MPV below (above) the displayed order on the Exchange Book'' and
instead provide that such order would be cancelled. In addition, to
simplify the rule text, the Exchange proposes to combine Rule
7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii), as revised, with Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(i). Proposed
amended Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(i) would thus provide:

    If the limit price of the Day ISO ALO to buy (sell) crosses the
working price of any displayed or non-displayed order on the
Exchange Book, it will trade as the liquidity taker with such
order(s). Any untraded quantity of the Day ISO ALO will have a
working price and display price equal to its limit price, provided
that if the limit price of the Day ISO ALO to buy (sell) locks the
display price of any order ranked Priority 2--Display Orders on the
Exchange Book, it will be cancelled.

    The Exchange also proposes the following conforming changes
consistent with the proposed change to cancel Day ISO ALOs that lock
displayed interest:
     The Exchange proposes to renumber Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(iii)
as Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii) to accommodate the proposed combination of
current Rules 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(i) and 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(ii), as described
above.
     The Exchange proposes to replace introductory references
providing that a Day ISO ALO Order will be ``priced'' or ``priced or
trade, or both,'' with the phrase ``will be processed'' in Rules
7.31E(e)(3)(D) and 7.31E(3)(D)(ii)(a) (as renumbered). The Exchange
proposes this change to reflect that certain ALO Orders would be
cancelled (and therefore not priced or traded).
     The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(D)(iv),
which currently specifies how a Day ISO ALO will be processed after it
is displayed. Because a Day ISO ALO would now either display at its
limit price (because, by its terms, it can be displayed at a price that
locks or crosses the contra-side PBBO) \5\ or be cancelled if it locks
displayed interest on the Exchange Book, there would no longer be any
circumstances where a resting Day ISO ALO would reprice and therefore
this rule text would no longer be applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7.31E(e)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update.

Subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange
anticipates that the proposed changes will be implemented in January
2021.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
simplifying the treatment of ALO Orders that lock displayed orders. The
Exchange believes that cancelling ALO Orders that lock displayed
interest, rather than repricing them, would provide ETP Holders with
greater determinism with respect to how ALO Orders would be processed
on the Exchange and enhance ETP Holders' ability to manage order flow
to suit their business needs. In addition, the Exchange believes that
cancelling ALO Orders that would otherwise be marketable against
displayed interest on the Exchange Book is consistent with the terms of
the ALO Order, i.e., that such orders would not take liquidity on the
Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would
promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest because the proposed behavior to cancel ALO Orders on the
Exchange if the limit price would lock contra-side displayed orders
would be consistent with functionality available on other exchanges for
similar order types when they lock displayed interest.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Rules
11.9(c)(6), 11.9(g)(1)(D), 11.9(g)(2)(D), and 11.13(a)(2)(C) (a Post
Only Order that locks displayed interest on BZX may be cancelled at
the User's option); Nasdaq Stock Exchange LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule
4702(b)(4)(A) (Nasdaq Participants may opt to have Post-Only Orders
cancel if they lock orders displayed on the Nasdaq Book); MEMX LLC
(``MEMX'') Rules 11.6(a), 11.6(l), and 11.8(b)(10) (Users have the
option to apply Post Only and Cancel Back instructions to orders
that would lock displayed interest, and MEMX cancels ISO orders with
Post Only and Day instructions if they lock displayed interest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change would reduce the burden on competition because
it would simplify the treatment of such orders when they lock displayed
interest and promote consistency with functionality offered for similar
order types on other exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2020-77 and should be submitted
on or before November 27, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24632 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74841-74842]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2146-138]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project No: 2146-138.
    c. Date Filed: October 5, 2012.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Project.
    f. Location: Neely Henry Lake, Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant To: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: David K. Anderson, Alabama Power Company, 600
18th Street North, Birmingham, AL 35203-8180,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jade Alvey,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: January 11, 2013.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Please include the project number (P-2146-138) on any comments or
motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Application: Alabama Power Company requests
Commission approval to grant Jack's Family Restaurant, a fast food
restaurant, a permit to use project lands and waters for the
installation of wooden pilings around an existing pier inside the
project boundary on Lake Neely Henry. The proposal includes a total of
twenty 8-foot long wooden pilings measuring 8 inches in diameter. The
pilings would allow for the temporary mooring of a total of 10
watercraft at any one time. The temporary mooring locations would be
for use by patrons who access the restaurant by boat.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for

inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field (P-2146) to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30394 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55871-55873]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2019-0491; FRL-10001-19-Region 9]

California: Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
authorize changes California has made to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
EPA reviewed California's application for authorization of these
changes and determined that the changes satisfy all requirements. EPA
seeks public comment prior to taking final action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by November 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-
RCRA-2019-0491], at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Amaro, EPA Region 9, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also view California's
application at: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department
of Toxic Substances Control, 1001 ``I'' Street, 11th Floor, Sacramento,
CA 95814, Attention: Carmela Torres, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, from 8 a.m.
to noon and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday (appointment
preferred but not required).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States that have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized states at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized states. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in California, including
the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the
state is granted authorization to do so.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On July 10, 2019, California submitted a program revision
application to EPA seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste management program that correspond to certain Federal rules
related to the universal waste rule initially promulgated by EPA on May
11,1995 (63 FR 60 FR 25492) and amended on July 6, 1999 (64 FR 36466),
December 24, 1998 (63 FR 71225), August 5, 2005 (70 FR 45508) and July
14, 2006 (71 FR 40254). These regulatory changes are also known as RCRA
rule checklists 142A, 142B, 142D, 142E, 176, 181 and 209. EPA concludes
that California's application to revise its authorized program meets
all statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set
forth in RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271.
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant California final authorization to
operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the
authorization application dated July 10, 2019, and as outlined below in
Section F of this document.
    California has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian country)
and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program application, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as
discussed above.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    If California is authorized for the changes described in the
State's authorization application, these changes would become part of
the authorized State hazardous waste program and would therefore be
federally enforceable. California will continue to have primary
enforcement authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste
program. EPA would retain its authorities under RCRA sections 3007,
3008, 3013, and 7003, including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized California
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which California is
being authorized by today's action are already effective and are not
changed by today's action.

D. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this proposed
action?

    EPA will consider all comments received during the comment period
and address them in a final rule. You may not have another opportunity
to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do
so at this time.

E. What has California previously been authorized for?

    California initially received final authorization for the state
hazardous waste management program on July 23, 1992, effective August
1, 1992 (57 FR

32726). EPA granted final authorization for changes to California's
program on the following dates: September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49118),
effective September 26, 2001 and October 7, 2011 (76 FR 62303),
effective October 7, 2011.

F. What changes is EPA authorizing with today's action?

    EPA proposes to determine, subject to our consideration of any
adverse written comments, that California's hazardous waste program
revisions are equivalent to, consistent with and no less stringent than
the Federal program and therefore satisfy all the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to authorize California's program
changes to adopt a universal waste program as outlined in the following
table.

                 State Analogues to the Federal Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Analogous state
                                                    authority California
   Description of Federal                            code of regulations
 requirement (checklist, if     Federal Register       (CCR) title 22,
         applicable)              date and page       division 4.5 and
                                                      health and safety
                                                            code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 Code of Federal            60 FR 25492, May 11,  22 CCR 66273,
 Regulations (CFR) part 273,   1995, 63 FR 71225,    October 22, 2018.
 subparts A through G--        December 24, 1998;    Health & Safety
 Standards for Universal       64 FR 36466, July     Code 25201.16,
 Waste \a\ (Checklists 142     6, 1999; 70 FR        October 3, 2001.
 A, B, D, E, 176, 181, 209,    45508, Aug. 5,
 215) \b\.                     2005; 71 FR 40254,
                               July 14, 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Because several definitions in the state universal waste regulations
  do not have Federal counterparts, the state cited additional Federal
  regulations at 40 CFR 260.1, 260.10, 261.4, 262.81, 264.142 and 270.2
  in support of its application for authorization of the State's
  universal waste program.
\b\ Although Checklist 214 is mentioned in the State Attorney General's
  Statement, EPA is not including it here because the typographical and
  spelling corrections made in this checklist are not relevant to the
  State's regulatory language.

G. Where are the revised state rules different from the Federal rules?

    EPA considers the following California requirements to be beyond
the scope of the Federal program:
     Notifications. Small quantity handlers of universal waste
must notify the State of hazardous waste activity. Federal regulations
in 40 CFR 273.12 exempt small quantity handlers of universal waste from
notification of hazardous waste activity.
     Mercury-added lamps toxicity. Stricter toxicity standards
in California Code of Regulations title 22 division 4.5, chapter 11
cause some mercury-added lamps not defined as Federal hazardous waste
to be covered under the California hazardous waste and universal waste
programs.
     California-only universal wastes. California has added the
following non-RCRA waste streams to its universal waste program:
Aerosol cans, cathode ray tubes (CRTs), CRT glass and electronic
devices.

Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the authorized program
and EPA cannot enforce them. Although regulated entities must comply
with these requirements in accordance with state law, they are not RCRA
requirements.
    In the State's application, it identified the consolidation of
large and small quantity universal waste handler requirements resulting
in the application of standards to handlers that would otherwise be
exempt from the requirement as broader in scope. However, EPA has
determined that this requirement is more stringent.

H. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    California will continue to issue permits for all the provisions
for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues.
Section 3006(g)(1) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g)(1), gives EPA the
authority to issue or deny permits or parts of permits for requirements
for which the state is not authorized. Therefore, whenever EPA adopts
standards under HSWA for activities or wastes not currently covered by
the authorized program, EPA may process RCRA permits in California for
the new or revised HSWA standards until California has received final
authorization for such new or revised HSWA standards. EPA and
California have agreed to a joint permitting process for facilities
covered by both the authorized program and standards under HSWA for
which the State is not yet authorized, and for handling existing EPA
permits after the State receives authorization.

I. How does today's action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
California?

    California is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste
program in Indian country within the state. Therefore, this action has
no effect on Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction over Indian
country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program
on these lands.

J. What is codification and is EPA codifying California's hazardous
waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the state's statutes and
regulations that comprise the state's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized state rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not
proposing to codify the authorization of California's changes at this
time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart F
for this authorization of California's program changes until a later
date.

K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
(RCRA state authorization) from the requirements of Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). Therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes state requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action authorizes pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). As explained above, this action also does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal governments,
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action will not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes state
requirements as part of the state RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant, and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This 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), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application for
authorization, as long as the state meets the criteria required by
RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA,
when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use
of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. Because
this rule authorizes pre-existing state rules which are at least
equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal
requirements, and impose no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse
human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report
containing this document and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action nevertheless will be effective 60 days
after the final approval is published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: September 20, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2019-22703 Filed 10-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                               ~MEETING ROSTER~
                      TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
                SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHEMICALS (SACC)
                    PUBLIC VIRTUAL MEETING May 26-29, 2020
           TSCA SACC Website: https://www.epa.gov/tsca-peer-review
                DOCKET ID NUMBER: EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2019 - 0502
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           Meeting Location: Online

   Peer Review for the U.S. EPA Draft Risk Evaluation for
Perchloroethylene

Peer Review Roster

TSCA SACC Chair

Kenneth Portier, Ph.D. (Retired)
(formerly American Cancer Society)
Consulting Biostatistician
Athens, Georgia

Designated Federal Official

Tamue Gibson, M.S.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science Coordination and Policy
TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals
EPA East Building, MC 7201M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

TSCA (SACC) Members

Henry Anderson, M.D.
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin

Charles Barton, Ph.D.
Independent Consultant
Alpharetta, Georgia

Steven Bennett, Ph.D.
Household & Commercial Products Association
Washington, District of Columbia

Sheri Blystone, Ph.D.
SNF Holding Company
Riceboro, Georgia

James Bruckner, Ph.D.
Department of Pharmacology & Biomedical Sciences
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia

Deborah Cory-Slechta, Ph.D.
Department of Environmental Medicine
University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry
Rochester, New York

Holly Davies, Ph.D.
Washington State Department of Health
Tumwater, Washington

William Doucette, Ph.D.
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah

Kathleen Gilbert, Ph.D. (Retired)
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute
Little Rock, Arkansas

Mark Johnson, Ph.D.
US Army Public Health Center
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Alan Kaufman
Toy Industry Association
New York, New York

John Kissel, Ph.D. (Retired)
Env. & Occupational Health Sciences
School of Public Health
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington

Craig Rowlands, Ph.D.
Underwriters Laboratories, LLC
Northbrook, Illinois

Ruthann Rudel, M.S.
Silent Spring Institute
Newton, Massachusetts

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, California

TSCA SACC Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers

Udayan M. Apte, Ph.D.
Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology & Therapeutics
Universal Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas

George P. Cobb III, Ph.D.
Department of Environmental Science
Baylor University
Waco, Texas

Michael J. Daniels, Ph.D.
Department of Statistics
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida

Stephen G. Grant, Ph.D.
Nova Southeastern University
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Muhammad M. Hossain, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Florida International University
Miami, Florida

Lawrence H. Lash, Ph.D.
Department of Pharmacology
Wayne State University
School of Medicine
Detroit, Michigan

Zhoumeng Lin, Ph.D.
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas

Jaymie R. Meliker, Ph.D.
Department of Family, Population, & Preventive Medicine
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, New York

Michael L. Pennell, Ph.D.
Division of Biostatistics
College of Public Health
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio

Katherine F. Roby, Ph.D.
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of Kansas Cancer Center
Institute for Reproduction and Perinatal Health
Director, Reproductive Endocrinology Laboratory
Director, Tumor Graft Models for Ovarian Cancer Core Facility
University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, Kansas

Charles V. Vorhees, Ph.D.
University of Cincinnati
College of Medicine and Division of Neurology
Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation
Cincinnati, Ohio

Calvin C. Willhite, Ph.D.
McLaughlin Center for Population Health Risk Assessment and
Risk Sciences International
Novato, California