## 12.10.2019: Cleanded and commented
## 8.02.2018: simplified MC model to speed up
## 9.18.2020: Eqn numbers refer to numbers in criterion document
chlrat <- function(df1, qa, varout = NULL, runmod = T) {

    require(rstan)
    require(mgcv)
    source("logtick.exp.R")
    source("binv.R")

    df1$site.id.c <- factor(df1$site.id.c)
    qa$idnew <- factor(qa$idnew)

    nchains <- 6  # number of concurrent chains in MCMC simulation

    ## set parameters here for calculating criteria
    p.exceed <- 0.1  # set allowable exceedance rate
    thold <- 8         # set MC threshold
    credint <- 0.9    # set credible interval for candidate criterion

    ## make mc into integer times 10
    df1$mc <- round(df1$mc*10)
    df1$mc[is.na(df1$mc)] <- 0

    ## drop below detection limit chl
    df1$chl[df1$chl==0] <- NA

    ## log transforms
    df1$log.cyano <- log(df1$biov.cyano*1e-6)
    df1$biov.tot <- log(df1$biov.tot*1e-6)
    df1$chl.loge <- log(df1$chl)

    ## drop samples missing cyano or chl
    incvec <- !is.na(df1$log.cyano) & ! is.na(df1$chl.loge)
    df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    ## make a new id based on site and visit no
    df1$id2 <- paste(df1$site.id.c, df1$visit.no, sep = "--")

    ## outliers: two cyano biov measurements that are very low omitted
    incvec <- df1$log.cyano < -3 & df1$mc > 50
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]

    ## drop HI (not in conterminous US)
    incvec <- df1$st.nla2012 == "HI"
    df1 <- df1[!incvec,]

    df1 <- df1[, c("idnew",  "log.cyano", "prop.cyano", "biov.tot",
                   "chl.loge", "mc",
                   "st.nla2012", "us.l3code")]

    ## center chl and biov
    mnval.chl <- mean(df1$chl.loge)
    df1$chl.loge <- df1$chl.loge - mnval.chl
    mnval.biov <- mean(df1$biov.tot)
    df1$biov.tot <- df1$biov.tot - mnval.biov
    df1$log.cyano <- df1$log.cyano - mnval.biov

    ## prepare QA data
    qa$log.cyano1 <- log(qa$biov1.cyano*1.e-6)
    qa$log.cyano2 <- log(qa$biov2.cyano*1.e-6)
    qa$prop.cyano2 <- qa$biov2.cyano/qa$biov2
    qa$biov.tot2 <- log(qa$biov2*1.e-6) - mnval.biov

    ## only MSU resample is a duplicate so only use that one
    selvec <- ! is.na(qa$log.cyano2)
    qa <- qa[selvec,]
    df2 <- merge(df1, qa[, c("idnew", "log.cyano2", "prop.cyano2", "biov.tot2")],
                 by = "idnew")
    df1b <- df2[, c("idnew", "log.cyano2", "prop.cyano2", "biov.tot2")]
    names(df1b) <- c("idnew", "log.cyano", "prop.cyano", "biov.tot")

    ## add in blank columns so that I can rbind QA data with main data
    df1b$chl.loge <- NA
    df1b$mc <- NA
    df1b$st.nla2012 <- NA
    df1b$us.l3code <- NA
    df1 <- rbind(df1, df1b)

    ## subsample for model testing (sims are faster with a smaller dataset)
    #set.seed(10)   # random seed is only used when data is subsampled
    idu <- unique(df1$idnew)
    selvec <- is.na(df1$mc)
    idp <- df1$idnew[selvec]  # select replicates in subsample
    isamp <- sample(length(idu))
    n <- nrow(df1)
    idpick <- unique(c(idp, idu[isamp[1:round(n*0.20)]]))
    incvec <- rep(F, times = nrow(df1))
    for (i in idpick) incvec <- incvec|df1$idnew == i
    ## comment this out to stop subsampling
    #df1 <- df1[incvec,]

    ## reset site id factors
    df1$idnew <- factor(df1$idnew)
    df1$sampnum <- as.numeric(df1$idnew)
    w <- regexpr("--", as.character(df1$idnew))
    df1$site.id.c <- substring(as.character(df1$idnew), 1, w-1)
    df1$site.id.c <- factor(df1$site.id.c)
    df1$st.nla2012 <- factor(df1$st.nla2012)
    df1$istate <- as.numeric(df1$st.nla2012)
    df1$us.l3code <- factor(df1$us.l3code)

    ## specify dfsamp as samples with mc (not replicate cyano)
    incvec <- ! is.na(df1$mc)
    dfsamp <- df1[incvec,]
    dfsamp <- dfsamp[order(dfsamp$sampnum),]

    mnval <- c(mnval.chl, mnval.biov)
    names(mnval) <- c("chl","biov")

    ## save raw data for shiny
    save(dfsamp, mnval, file = "shinydat.rda")

    lookup <- unique.data.frame(dfsamp[, c("sampnum", "site.id.c")])
    lookup$sitenum <- as.numeric(lookup$site.id.c)
    lookup <- lookup[order(lookup$sampnum),]

    datstan <- list(n = nrow(df1),
                    nsamp = nrow(dfsamp),
                    chl = dfsamp$chl.loge,
                    chl2 = dfsamp$chl.loge^2,
                    nsite = max(lookup$sitenum),
                    sitenum = lookup$sitenum,
                    propcyano = round(df1$prop.cyano*100),
                    biov = df1$biov.tot,
                    id = df1$sampnum,
                    mc = dfsamp$mc,
                    nstate = length(levels(dfsamp$st.nla2012)),
                    istate = as.numeric(dfsamp$st.nla2012))

    print(str(datstan))

    modstan <- '
       data {
           int n;                  // total number of samples
           int nsamp;              // number of samples without QA
           vector[nsamp] chl;      // observed log chl
           vector[nsamp] chl2;     // log chl squared
           int nsite;              // number of lakes
           int sitenum[nsamp];     // lookup table for sitenum
           int propcyano[n];       // proportion cyanobacteria
           vector[n] biov;         // total phytoplankton biovolume
           int id[n];              // sample number for full dataset
           int mc[nsamp];          // observed MC
           int nstate;             // number of states
           int istate[nsamp];      // state associated with each sample
       }
       parameters {
          // parameters for chl-cyano relationship
           vector[3] muf;    // coef for quadratic relationship
           real<lower = 0> sig[4];  // variance components
           vector[nsamp] eta1;      // overparametrization variables
           vector[nsamp] eta2;
           vector[n] eta3;

           // parameters for cyano-mc relationship
           vector[3] d;  // coefficients for piecewise linear model
           real cp;      // changepoint
           real<lower = 0> phi; //over dispersion for neg bin

           // parameters for site mean chl
           real<lower = 0> sigchl[2];
           vector[nsite] etachl;
       }
       transformed parameters {
            vector[nsamp] biov_mean;
            vector[nsamp] alpha;
            vector[nsamp] cyano_mean;
            vector[n] alpha2;
            vector[nsamp] mcmean;
            vector[nsite] chlsite;

            chlsite = etachl*sigchl[1];

            // quadratic relationship for chl-propcyano (Eqn 17)
            alpha = muf[1] + muf[2] * chl + muf[3] * chl2 + sig[2]*eta2;
            alpha2 = alpha[id] + sig[3]*eta3;

            // compute mean cyano (Eqn 21)
            biov_mean = chl + eta1*sig[1];
            cyano_mean = biov_mean + log(inv_logit(alpha));

            // piecewise linear relationship for MC (Eqn 21)
            mcmean = d[1] + d[2]*cyano_mean +
               (d[3]-d[2])*(cyano_mean - cp) .* inv_logit(10*(cyano_mean-cp));
       }

       model {
            // weakly informative priors
            sigchl ~ cauchy(0,3);
            etachl ~ normal(0,1);
            sig ~ cauchy(0,3);
            eta1 ~ normal(0,1);
            eta2~ normal(0,1);
            eta3 ~ normal(0,1);
            d ~ normal(0,3);
            cp ~ normal(0,1); // prior for cp suggests changepoint is close
                              // to mean value of cyano biovolume
            phi ~ normal(0,3);

           // sampling statements
            chl ~ normal(chlsite[sitenum], sigchl[2]);
            biov ~ normal(biov_mean[id], sig[4]);
            propcyano ~ binomial_logit(100, alpha2);
            mc ~ neg_binomial_2_log(mcmean, phi);
       }
    '

    if (runmod) {

        rstan_options(auto_write= TRUE)
        options(mc.cores = nchains)
        fitout <- stan(model_code = modstan, data = datstan,
                       chains = nchains, iter = 1500, warmup = 300, thin = 4,
                       control = list(max_treedepth = 15, adapt_delta = 0.9))
        return(fitout)
    }
    else {

        grey.t <- adjustcolor("grey39", alpha.f = 0.5)

        ### plot chl vs. phytoplankton biovolume (Fig. 21 in document)
        dev.new()
        layout(matrix(c(1,2,3), nrow = 1, ncol = 3), widths = c(2, 2.25, 2.25))
        par(mar = c(4,4,1,1), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))
        plot(dfsamp$chl.loge + mnval["chl"], dfsamp$biov.tot + mnval["biov"],
             axes = F,
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
             ylab = expression(Phytoplankton~biovolume~(mm^3/L)),
             pch = 21, col = "grey", bg = "white")
        abline(-mnval["chl"]+mnval["biov"], 1)
        logtick.exp(0.0001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))

        ### plot chl vs. cyano relative abundance (prop.cyano)
        ## prepare prop.cyano for plotting by converting 1s and 0s to
        ## values close to 1 and 0, so they can be logit transformed
        incvec <- dfsamp$prop.cyano == 1
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- NA
        maxval <- max(dfsamp$prop.cyano, na.rm = T)
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- 1 - (1-maxval)*0.5
        incvec <- dfsamp$prop.cyano == 0
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- NA
        minval <- min(dfsamp$prop.cyano, na.rm = T)
        dfsamp$prop.cyano[incvec] <- 0.5*minval

        ## average prop.cyano in bins of about 20 samples
        bout <- binv(dfsamp$chl.loge,
                     qlogis(dfsamp$prop.cyano), 20)

        ## compute posterior predictions of mean relationship
        np <- 80   # posterior predictions at 80 points
        ## set up storage for median and upper and lower credible intervals
        predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow = np)
        xrange <- range(bout$xb)
        x <- seq(xrange[1], xrange[2], length = np)
        for (j in 1:np) {
            y <- varout$muf[,1] + varout$muf[,2]*x[j] +
                varout$muf[,3]*x[j]^2
            ## compute median prediction and 90% credible intervals
            predout[j,] <- quantile(y,prob = c(0.05,0.5,0.95))
        }

        plot(bout$xb+mnval["chl"], bout$yb, axes = F,
             pch = 21,  col = "grey39",
             bg = "white", ylab = "Cyanobacteria rel. abund.",
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)))
        logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1), c(F,T))
        ## vertical axis is logit transformed
        lab0 <- c(0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 0.95)
        at0 <- qlogis(lab0)
        axis(2, at = at0, lab = lab0)
        lab0 <- seq(0.025, 0.95, by = 0.025)
        at0 <- qlogis(lab0)
        axis(2, at = at0, lab = NA, tcl = -0.2)
        polygon(c(x, rev(x)) + mnval["chl"],
                c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
                border= NA, col = grey.t)
        lines(x + mnval["chl"], predout[,2])

        ## plot mean cyano biov vs. MC
        ## compute mean predicted cyano biov from model
        dfsamp$cyano.mean <- apply(varout$cyano_mean, 2, mean)

        ## mean microcystin in bins of 20
        bout <- binv(dfsamp$cyano.mean, dfsamp$mc, 20)
        bout$yb[bout$yb == 0] <- NA

        ## posterior predictions assuming mean cyano biov is known
        x <- seq(min(bout$xb), max(bout$xb),length = np)
        predout <- matrix(NA, ncol = 3, nrow=length(x))
        for (j in 1:length(x)) {
            mcmean <- varout$d[,1] + varout$d[,2]*x[j] +
                (varout$d[,3]-varout$d[,2])*
                    (x[j] - varout$cp)*as.numeric(x[j] > varout$cp)
            ## compute median and 90% credible intervals
            predout[j,] <- quantile(mcmean-log(10), prob = c(0.05, 0.5, 0.95))
        }
        ylim <- range(log(bout$yb*0.1), na.rm = T)
        plot(bout$xb, log(bout$yb*0.1), axes = F,
             pch = 21, col = "grey39", bg = "white",
             xlab = expression(Cyano~biovolume~(mm^3/L)),
             ylab = expression(MC~(mu*g/L)))
        incvec <- is.na(bout$yb)
        points(bout$xb[incvec],
               rep(ylim[1] - 0.02*diff(range(ylim)), times = sum(incvec)),
               pch = 21, col ="grey39", bg = "black", cex = 0.6)
        logtick.exp(0.0001, 10, c(1,2), c(F,F))

        polygon(c(x, rev(x)),
                c(predout[,1], rev(predout[,3])),
                col = grey.t, border= NA)
        lines(x, predout[,2])

        ## plot all mc data vs. chl (Fig. 22)
        grey.t <- adjustcolor("grey", alpha.f = 0.5)

        ## simulate mc given chl using model output

        # set up chl values where predicted output will be computed
        # 50 values ranging from minimum to maximum chl
        chlnew <- seq(min(dfsamp$chl.loge),
                      max(dfsamp$chl.loge),length = 50)
        nit <- length(varout$phi)  # number of samples in MCMC sim

        ## store sampled posterior distribution of model parameters
        ## repeat them fac times to increase sample size
        ## for plotting

        f1 <- varout$muf[,1]
        f2 <- varout$muf[,2]
        f3 <- varout$muf[,3]
        sig1 <- varout$sig[,1]
        sig2 <- varout$sig[,2]
        cp <- varout$cp
        d1 <- varout$d[,1]
        d2 <- varout$d[,2]
        d3 <- varout$d[,3]
        sigchl <- varout$sigchl[,2]

        ## set up storage location for predicted mc
        mcpred <- matrix(NA, nrow=length(chlnew), ncol = nit)
        ## compute predicted MC
        for (i in 1:length(chlnew)) {
            ## get error associated with estimating seasonal mean chl
            chlsamp <- rnorm(nit, mean = chlnew[i], sd = sigchl)
            ## predict proportion cyano for each chl
            alpha <- rnorm(nit, mean = f1 + f2*chlsamp + f3*chlsamp^2,
                           sd = sig1)
            ## estimate of cyano abundance
            mn0 <- rnorm(nit, mean = log(plogis(alpha)) + chlsamp,
                         sd = sig2)
            ## predict mean MC given cyano
            y.sc <- d1 + d2*mn0 + (d3 - d2)*mn0*plogis(10*(mn0 - cp))
            # sample from negative binomial to get distribution of
            # observed MC given mean mc at the selected percentile
            mcpred[i,] <- qnbinom(1-p.exceed, mu = exp(y.sc),
                                  size = varout$phi)
        }

        # compute mean, 90th and 99th percentile of predicted distribution
        # of microcysin
        mcmean0 <- apply(mcpred, 1, median)
        ## compute selected credible intervals
        mcup <- apply(mcpred, 1, quantile, prob = 1-(1-credint)*0.5)
        mclo <- apply(mcpred, 1, quantile, prob = (1-credint)*0.5)

        # compute candidate chl criterion
        crit <- approx(mcup, chlnew, thold*10)$y

        dev.new()
        layout(matrix(c(1,2), nrow = 2, ncol = 1),
               heights = c(1, 0.5))
        par(mar = c(0,5,1,1), mgp = c(2.3,1,0))

        ## identify observed microcystin samples that are zero
        ## these needed to be plotted differently in log-transformed coord
        iszero <- dfsamp$mc == 0
        dfsamp$mc[iszero] <- NA
        xlim <- range(c(dfsamp$chl.loge + mnval["chl"]))
        ylim <- c(log(0.1), max(log(mcup*0.1)))

        ymin <- ylim[1] - 0.04*diff(ylim)
        xmin <- xlim[1] - 0.04*diff(xlim)

        ## set zero values of lower CL to ymin so that error bound is drawn
        ## correctly in log-transformed coord
        mclo[mclo ==0] <- exp(ymin)
        ## plotting observed data for grab chl vs mc, but
        ## modeled relationship is based on
        ## seasonal mean chl, because the difference isn't that great.
        ## Effect of seasonal mean chl is manifested in the credible
        ## intervals
        plot(dfsamp$chl.loge + mnval["chl"],
             log(dfsamp$mc*0.1),
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
             ylab = expression(MC~(mu*g/L)), axes = F,
             xlim  = xlim, ylim = ylim,  type = "n")
        points(dfsamp$chl.loge + mnval["chl"],
           log(dfsamp$mc*0.1), pch = 21, col = "grey39",
           bg = "white", cex = 0.8)
#            points(bout$xb, log(bout$yb), pch = 21, col = "grey39",
#                   bg = "white")
        logtick.exp(0.0001, 10, c(2), c(F,F))
        tickloc <-  c(seq(0.01, 0.09, 0.01), seq(0.1, 0.9, 0.1),
                      seq(1,9, 1), seq(10,90,10), seq(100,900, 100))
        axis(1, at = log(tickloc), lab = NA, tcl = -0.2)
        axis(1, at = log(c(0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000)), lab = NA)

        # add predicted percentile lines
        polygon(c(chlnew + mnval["chl"], rev(chlnew + mnval["chl"])),
                c(log(mcup*0.1), rev(log(mclo*0.1))), border = NA,
                col = grey.t)
        lines(chlnew + mnval["chl"], log(mcmean0*0.1))

        # draw crit line
        if (!is.na(crit)) {
            segments(xmin, log(thold), crit + mnval["chl"], log(thold),
                     col = "red")
            segments(crit+mnval["chl"], log(thold),
                     crit+mnval["chl"], ymin, col = "red")
        }
        else cat("Criteria could not be calculated.\n")

        ## put plot of non-detects at the bottom
        par(mar = c(4,5,1,1))
        cutp <- quantile(dfsamp$chl.loge, prob = seq(0,1, length = 21))
        cutm <- (cutp[-1] + cutp[-length(cutp)])*0.5
        cutf <- cut(dfsamp$chl.loge, cutp, include.lowest = T)
        pnond <- tapply(as.numeric(iszero), cutf, mean, include.lowest = T)

        plot(cutm + mnval["chl"], pnond, xlim = xlim, axes = F,
             xlab = expression(Chl~italic(a)~(mu*g/L)),
             ylab = "Proportion\n non-detect")
        axis(2)
        logtick.exp(0.001, 10, c(1), c(F,F))

        cat("Criterion value:", round(exp(crit + mnval["chl"]), digits = 1), "\n")

    }

    return()

}

#fitout <- chlrat(dat.merge.all, qa.biov, runmod = T)
#varout <- extract(fitout, pars = c("muf", "sig", "d", "cp", "phi",
#                              "cyano_mean", "sigchl", "chlsite"))
chlrat(dat.merge.all, qa.biov, varout, runmod = F)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12382-12383]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05636]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0222; FRL-9974-61]

Labat-Anderson Incorporated; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Labat-Anderson Incorporated in
accordance with the CBI regulations. Labat-Anderson Incorporated has
been awarded multiple contracts to perform work for OPP, and access to
this information will enable Labat-Anderson Incorporated to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: Labat-Anderson Incorporated will be given access to this
information on or before March 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Northern, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0222, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under this contract number, the contractor will perform the
following:
    Under Contract No. DJJ13-C-2442, This contract will be used to
provide professional litigation support products and services to the
Department of Justice and other Federal agencies on an indefinite
delivery, indefinite quantity task order basis. Individual task orders
issued under this contract may support any Department of Justice
organization or Federal agency on a local and/or nationwide basis.
Services may be required anywhere in or outside of the United States
and its territories. This contract will also be used to support case-
or investigation-related administrative functions.
    This contract involves no subcontractors.
    OPP has determined that the contract described in this document
involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6,
and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contract with Labat-Anderson Incorporated, prohibits use of the
information for any purpose not specified in these contract; prohibits
disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written
approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee
of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from
unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Labat-Anderson Incorporated
is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any
CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or
compromise. No information will be provided to Labat-Anderson
Incorporated until the requirements in this document have been fully
satisfied. Records of information provided to Labat-Anderson
Incorporated will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for these
contract. All information supplied to Labat-Anderson Incorporated by
EPA for use in connection with these contract will be returned to EPA
when Labat-Anderson Incorporated has completed its work.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: February 27, 2018.
Hamaad Syed,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-05636 Filed 3-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54300-54301]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0394; FRL-9970-69-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Direct Final Rule for the Approval of an Alternative Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Standard; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to adverse comments received, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the August 28, 2017 direct final rule that
approved a revision to the Maryland state implementation plan (SIP) to
incorporate by reference a Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
order that establishes an alternative volatile organic compound (VOC)
emission standard for National Gypsum

Company (NGC) to ensure that it remains a minor VOC source. EPA stated
in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comments by
September 27, 2017, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect.
EPA subsequently received one adverse comment. EPA will address the
comment received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed
action also published on August 28, 2017. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action.

DATES: As of November 17, 2017, the direct final rule published at 82
FR 40715, August 28, 2017, is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 24, 2016, MDE submitted a formal
revision to the Maryland SIP. The SIP revision consisted of a request
to incorporate by reference a MDE departmental order that establishes
an alternative VOC emission standard for NGC as it appears in the
permit-to-construct conditions issued by MDE in order to ensure that it
remains a minor stationary source of VOCs. The alternative VOC
emissions limit of 195 pounds per operating day with at least a 99%
overall VOC control efficiency will achieve a stringent emissions
discharge reduction and is more stringent than any established standard
for reasonably available control technology (RACT) for major stationary
sources of VOCs in Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.19. Under
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>E--``Exceptions,'' a source may request an exception
to a VOC emissions limit from MDE if the source is not subject to new
source review (NSR) and if the source is unable to comply with COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>B--``Control of VOC from Installations.'' In the direct
final rule published on August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40715), EPA stated that
if EPA received adverse comments by September 27, 2017, the rule would
be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received one adverse
comment from an anonymous commenter.
    As a result of the comment received, EPA is withdrawing the direct
final rule approving the revision to the Maryland SIP that incorporates
by reference a MDE order establishing a VOC emission standard for NGC.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 31, 2017.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
Accordingly, the amendment to Sec.  52.1070(d) published on August 28,
2017 (82 FR 40715), which were to become effective November 27, 2017,
are withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2017-24889 Filed 11-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8986]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14793-000--AL]

The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of Alabama; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for exemption from licensing for the Camp
McDowell Project, to be located on Clear Creek, near Nauvoo, in Winston
County, Alabama, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In
the EA, Commission staff analyzes the potential environmental effects
of the project and concludes that issuing an exemption for the project,
with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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, contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Monte TerHaar at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    Dated: February 23, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04293 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5013-5019]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00678]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0372; FRL-10019-21-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU91

Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage
Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984. We are finalizing specific amendments that would allow owners or
operators of storage vessels subject to the Standards of Performance
for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels and equipped with either an
external floating roof (EFR) or internal floating roof (IFR) to
voluntarily elect to comply with the requirements specified in the
National Emission Standards for Storage Vessels (Tanks)--Control Level
2, as an alternative standard, in lieu of the requirements specified in
the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage
Vessels, subject to certain caveats and exceptions for monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting.

DATES: The final rule is effective on January 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0372. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information 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 electronically
on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Out of an abundance of
caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center
and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will
continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and
webform. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center
services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The
EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from
the Center for Disease Control, local area health departments, and our
federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change
regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Neil Feinberg, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use
multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not
be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference
purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EFR external floating roof
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ICR Information Collection Request
IFR internal floating roof
kPa kilopascals
m3 cubic meters

NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS new source performance standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
tpy tons per year
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

    Background information. On October 16, 2020, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23,
1984. 85 FR 65774. In this action, the EPA is finalizing decisions and
revisions for the rule. We summarize the in-scope comments we timely
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this
preamble. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background and Final Amendments
III. Public Comments and Responses
IV. Impacts of the Final Rule
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

     Table 1--Examples of Potentially Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category             NAICS code \1\     regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.....................             325  Chemical manufacturing
                                                  facilities.
                                            324  Petroleum and coal
                                                  products manufacturing
                                                  facilities.
                                         422710  Petroleum bulk stations
                                                  and terminals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your entity is affected by this action,
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in the
final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble, your delegated
authority, or your EPA Regional representative listed in 40 CFR 60.4
(General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/volatile-organic-liquid-storage-vessels-including-petroleum-storage.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version of the final rule and key technical documents
at this same website.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by March 22, 2021. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment, (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, WJC West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel
for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail
Code 2344A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background and Final Amendments

    Pursuant to the EPA's authority under CAA section 111, the Agency
proposed (49 FR 29698, July 23, 1984) and promulgated (52 FR 11420,
April 8, 1987) new source performance standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part
60, subpart Kb, for Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels, Including
Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels, for Which Construction,
Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After July 23, 1984. To
reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage vessels
with a capacity of 75

cubic meters (m\3\) or more that store organic liquids with a true
vapor pressure over 27.6 kilopascals (kPa), and from storage vessels
with a capacity of 151 m\3\ or more that store organic liquids with a
true vapor pressure over 5.2 kPa, NSPS subpart Kb requires the use of
either an EFR, an IFR, or a closed vent system and a control device.
See 40 CFR 60.110b(a) and 60.112b(a) and (b).\1\ NSPS subpart Kb also
specifies testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and other
requirements in 40 CFR 60.113b through 60.116b to ensure compliance
with the standards. More specifically, 40 CFR 60.113b requires, among
other things, that certain inspections for IFR and EFR occur at least
once within certain defined timeframes (such as at least once every
year, 5 years, or 10 years). Storage vessels with an EFR consist of an
open-top cylindrical steel shell equipped with a deck that floats on
the surface of the stored liquid (commonly referred to as a floating
roof). Storage vessels with an IFR are fixed roof vessels \2\ that also
have a deck internal to the tank that floats on the liquid surface
within the fixed roof vessel (commonly referred to as an internal
floating roof).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All affected storage vessels storing organic liquids with a
true vapor pressure of 76.6 kPa or more must use a closed vent
system and a control device. 40 CFR 60.112b(b).
    \2\ A fixed roof storage vessel consists of a cylindrical steel
shell with a permanently affixed roof, which may vary in design from
cone or dome-shaped to flat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards in NSPS subpart Kb for storage vessels with an EFR or
IFR are a combination of a design, equipment, work practice, and
operational standards set pursuant to CAA section 111(h). These
standards require, among other things, that a rim seal be installed
continuously around the circumference of the vessel (between the inner
wall of the vessel and the floating roof) to prevent VOC from escaping
to the atmosphere through gaps between the floating roof and the inner
wall of the storage vessel. Similarly, NSPS subpart Kb requires deck
fittings \3\ on the floating roof to be equipped with a gasketed cover
or lid that is kept in the closed position at all times (i.e., no
visible gap), except when the device (the deck fitting) is in actual
use, to prevent VOC emissions from escaping through the deck fittings.
In general, NSPS subpart Kb requires owners or operators to conduct
visual inspections to check for defects in the floating roof, rim
seals, and deck fittings (e.g., holes, tears, or other openings in the
rim seal, or covers and lids on deck fittings that no longer close
properly) that could expose the liquid surface to the atmosphere and
potentially result in VOC emission losses through rim seals and deck
fittings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Numerous fittings pass through or are attached to floating
roof decks to accommodate structural support components or to allow
for operational functions. Typical deck fittings include, but are
not limited to, the following: Access hatches, gauge floats, gauge-
hatch/sample ports, rim vents, deck drains, deck legs, vacuum
breakers, and guidepoles. IFR tanks may also have deck seams, fixed-
roof support columns, ladders, and/or stub drains.
    \4\ For details about storage vessel emissions, refer to the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Sources, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Chapter 7: Liquid
Storage Tanks, dated June 2020, which is available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since promulgation of NSPS subpart Kb, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WW, which is applicable to storage vessels containing
organic materials, as part of the generic maximum achievable control
technology standards program for setting national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under CAA section 112. See 64 FR
34854 (June 29, 1999). NESHAP subpart WW was developed for the purpose
of providing consistent EFR and IFR requirements for storage vessels
that could be referenced by multiple NESHAP subparts. Like the NSPS
subpart Kb standards for floating roof tanks, NESHAP subpart WW is
comprised of a combination of design, equipment, work practice, and
operational standards. See proposed rule for NESHAP subpart WW (63 FR
55178, 55196 (October 14, 1998)). Both rules specify monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for storage vessels equipped
with EFR or IFR, and both include numerous requirements for inspections
that occur at least once within certain defined timeframes. See 40 CFR
63.1063 for the IFR and EFR inspection requirements of NESHAP subpart
WW. The inspections required by NESHAP subpart WW are intended to
achieve the same goals as those inspections required by NSPS subpart Kb
(e.g., both rules require visual inspections to check for defects in
the floating roof, rim seals, and deck fittings). Further, NESHAP
subpart WW incorporates technical improvements based on the EPA's
experience with implementation of other NESHAP. For storage vessels
equipped with either an EFR or IFR, as long as there is visual access
(as explained below), NESHAP subpart WW allows that the visual
inspection of the floating roof deck, deck fittings, and rim seals may
be conducted, while the tank remains in-service, from the top-side of
the floating roof (meaning on top of the floating roof, and in the case
of an IFR, under the fixed roof and internal to the tank); this is
referred to as an in-service top-side of the floating roof visual
inspection. In other words, in the case of an IFR, if an owner or
operator has physical access to the inside of the tank above the
floating roof and a floating roof design which allows inspectors to
have visual access to all rim seals and deck fittings of the floating
roof (meaning an inspector can see all the components required to be
inspected) while the storage vessel is in-service, then NESHAP subpart
WW does not require the owner or operator to take the storage vessel
out of service to inspect the floating roof, rim seals, and deck
fittings in accordance with 40 CFR 63.1063(d)(1).\5\ This contrasts
with NSPS subpart Kb, which, as explained in the proposed rule,
requires that these inspections be conducted when the storage vessel is
out-of-service (compare 40 CFR 63.1063(d)(1) with 40 CFR 60.113b(a)(4)
and (b)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``The inspection may be performed entirely from the top side
of the floating roof, as long as there is visual access to all deck
components specified in paragraph (a) of this section.'' 40 CFR
63.1063(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the EPA's authority under CAA section 111(h), we
proposed amendments to NSPS subpart Kb in a new paragraph (see proposed
85 FR 65782--40 CFR 60.110b(e)(5)) that would allow owners or operators
of storage vessels subject to NSPS subpart Kb, and equipped with either
an EFR or IFR, the choice to elect to comply with the requirements
specified in NESHAP subpart WW as an alternative standard, in lieu of
the requirements specified in NSPS subpart Kb. 85 FR 65774 (October 16,
2020). Sources subject to NSPS subpart Kb that are equipped with either
an EFR or IFR that elect to utilize the alternative standard would
comply with all of the requirements in NESHAP subpart WW instead of the
requirements in NSPS subpart Kb, 40 CFR 60.112b through 60.117b,
subject to certain caveats and exceptions explained in the proposed
rule and below. Among other things, this alternative allows owners or
operators of storage vessels subject to NSPS subpart Kb that are
equipped with an IFR, and that can meet the visual access requirement
of NESHAP subpart WW explained above, to conduct the internal in-
service top-side of the floating roof visual inspection pursuant to
NESHAP subpart WW, thereby avoiding the need to empty and degas the
vessel for the sole purpose of conducting the inspection. Further, we
are not changing the underlying monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping
requirements in either NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP subpart WW (with the

exception of some conforming and referencing edits to recordkeeping and
reporting as discussed in the proposed rule and below), nor are we
changing the applicability criteria in NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP
subpart WW. We are requiring that owners or operators that choose to
use this optional alternative standard continue to use the same NSPS
subpart Kb procedures for all storage vessels when determining
applicability of NSPS subpart Kb; thus, owners or operators that choose
to use this alternative must continue to comply with the monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR 60.116b(a), (c), (e), and (f)(1), and also must
keep other records and furnish other reports (as discussed in the
proposed rule and below) in addition to all of the requirements
specified in 40 CFR 63.1060 through 63.1067 of NESHAP subpart WW. In
addition, because NSPS subpart Kb applies to each single storage vessel
(see 40 CFR 60.110b for NSPS subpart Kb applicability and definition of
affected facility), this alternative standard would be available for
each affected facility as defined in NSPS subpart Kb. In other words,
an owner or operator with multiple affected facilities can choose to
use (or not use) the alternative for each individual affected facility.
    After considering the public comments received, the EPA is
finalizing the amendments that were proposed with minimal changes as a
result of comments. We are clarifying that the notification for
switching to or from the alternative standard is only required for the
initial inspection after the switch. We are also correcting
typographical errors in NSPS subpart Kb that inadvertently referenced
the wrong, nonexistent subparts.

III. Public Comments and Responses

    This section presents a summary of the relevant public comments
received on the proposed amendments and the EPA's responses. The EPA
received five relevant public comments on the proposed amendments, some
of which contained portions that were out of scope, and one comment
that was entirely out of scope. The comments can be obtained online
from the Federal Docket Management System at https://www.regulations.gov/.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA should consider
increasing the required frequency of inspections under the alternative
standard, and that the EPA did not offer strong evidence of equivalence
between the NSPS subpart Kb requirements and the alternative standard.
    Response: As discussed in section III.A of the preamble to the
proposed rule, EPA determined that the alternative standard is
appropriate because it will achieve a reduction in emissions at least
equivalent to the reduction in emissions achieved under NSPS subpart
Kb, and that the alternative standard is just as stringent as, if not
more stringent than, the underlying standard. This determination was
based upon the premise that the proposal would not change the
underlying compliance schedule(s) for events (inspections) under NSPS
subpart Kb or NESHAP subpart WW. The EPA did not solicit comment on,
nor did we intend to make changes to, any other provisions of NSPS
subpart Kb or NESHAP subpart WW, including the frequency of inspections
required by each of those subparts. Further, the EPA referenced and
provided background documentation in the docket to support this
equivalency determination (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0372-
0004). The commenter did not explain how the EPA's support of the
proposed equivalency determination was inadequate or provide any
evidence to support the claimed need of increased inspection frequency.
While the commenter states that ``empty vessel inspections'' are
``potentially more comprehensive,'' they offer no explanation for this
claim and do not dispute the EPA's explanation that ``[c]onducting the
in-service top-side-of-the-floating-roof inspection per NESHAP subpart
WW affords the inspector the same ability to examine all the listed
components for all of the listed defects/inspection failures as if the
storage vessel was emptied and degassed.'' 85 FR 65779. Therefore, the
EPA does not find it necessary to increase the required frequency of
inspections under the alternative standard in order to determine
equivalency for the multiple reasons stated in section III.A of the
proposal preamble which are not repeated here.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA consider including
additional context for the Agency's explanation regarding the emission
reduction potential of allowing compliance with the alternative
standard.
    Response: The EPA has already included a document in the docket
titled ``Impacts for Revision of Internal Floating Roof Storage Vessel
(Tank) Inspection Requirements Subject to 40 CFR part 60 Subpart Kb''
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0372-0005) that explains the air
quality impacts of the proposal. This document explains emission
releases from tank emptying and degassing events and includes national
impact estimates of the potential emissions avoided by the proposal in
terms of tons per year (tpy) of VOC. This document already includes
information that the commenter suggests should be added. Further, the
commenter did not provide any explanation as to why it believes the
documentation in the docket at proposal provided inadequate context for
understanding the predicted emissions reductions associated with the
proposed alternative standard. Therefore, the EPA does not find it
necessary to conduct any additional analysis of the air quality impacts
associated with the alternative standard.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying that the
proposed revisions (the alternative standard) can be used by sources
subject to other regulations that reference NSPS subpart Kb, such as
the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations and the
Gasoline Distribution MACT. The commenters noted that some emission
standards that reference NSPS subpart Kb do not have the same design
capacity and vapor pressure thresholds for requiring control as NSPS
subpart Kb yet still require compliance with NSPS subpart Kb. The
commenter suggested that the language of the proposed revisions be
changed to be inclusive of storage vessels subject to those referencing
standards.
    Response: The EPA did not propose to allow the alternative standard
for any sources aside from those that meet the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.110b and which are equipped with either an IFR or EFR
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1) or (2). If the EPA were to make the
alternative standard available to sources that comply with NSPS subpart
Kb via a referencing subpart as commenters suggest, then the EPA would
first need to conduct a detailed analysis of how each potential
referencing subpart references NSPS subpart Kb. The EPA would then need
to include conforming regulations in this rulemaking for recordkeeping,
reporting, and applicability of general provisions as needed for those
referencing subparts. These time-consuming analyses and associated
regulatory amendments are outside the scope of this limited rulemaking.
Therefore, we are not making changes to the criteria for storage
vessels allowed to use the alternative standard at this time. However,
the EPA will consider addressing the commenters' suggestion should the
Agency decide to propose additional amendments to NSPS subpart

Kb in the future via a different rulemaking process.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the reporting
requirements of the proposed revisions. The commenters stated that the
proposed revisions at 40 CFR 60.110b(e)(5)(iv)(B) and (C) require that
each affected facility using the alternative standard submit reports
under 40 CFR 63.1066 of NESHAP subpart WW; however, it was unclear when
these reports need to be submitted. The commenter stated that it was
unclear whether these reports should be submitted only with the first
inspection using the alternative standard or with every subsequent
inspection as well. The commenter stated that if the report was only
required for the first inspection, this would be redundant with the
reporting requirement in 40 CFR 60.110b(e)(5)(iv)(A). Alternatively, if
this requirement were for every inspection, this requirement would
conflict with the requirement in 40 CFR 60.110b(e)(5)(iv)(F)(2) to
submit inspection reports only when inspection failures occur.
    Response: The EPA intended to require only the initial notification
that occurs after electing to comply with the alternative standard
under 40 CFR 60.110b(e)(5)(iv)(A). Therefore, we agree with the
commenters' suggestion to remove the proposed provision that would have
required inclusion of this notification with subsequent reports and
have made the corresponding changes in the final rule language.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested clarifying the reporting
frequency in the proposed revisions. The commenters stated that
maintaining the reporting frequency of NSPS subpart Kb ``could lead to
inconsistent and duplicative reporting requirements which . . . EPA has
repeatedly acknowledged impose unnecessary burden with no environmental
benefit,'' and that the EPA should allow semi-annual reporting
frequency. The commenters stated that a semi-annual reporting
requirement would be more consistent with reporting requirements
established after the promulgation of NSPS subpart Kb in 1987. They
also stated that the EPA allows storage vessels subject to both NSPS
subpart Kb and a NESHAP to submit compliance reports on a semi-annual
basis.
    Response: As the EPA explained in section V of the proposed
amendments, the Agency did not solicit comment on, nor did we intend to
make changes to, any other provisions of NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP
subpart WW aside from incorporating the proposed alternative standard.
As such, the EPA is not modifying the reporting schedule for NSPS
subpart Kb because such a change would be outside the scope of this
limited rulemaking which was intended only to incorporate the proposed
alternative standard. It was not the EPA's intent to make changes to
the underlying reporting schedules in NSPS subpart Kb. However, the EPA
will consider addressing the commenters' suggestion should the Agency
decide to propose additional amendments to NSPS subpart Kb in the
future via a different rulemaking process.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended clarifying the inspection
deadlines of the alternative standard. The commenters stated that the
EPA should allow inspections to occur at any point within the specified
calendar period (e.g., within each calendar year rather than a specific
1-year interval), provided that a minimum amount of time has passed
since the last inspection.
    Response: As the EPA explained in section V of the proposed
amendments, the Agency did not solicit comment on, nor did we intend to
make changes to, any other provisions of NSPS subpart Kb or NESHAP
subpart WW aside from incorporating the proposed alternative standard.
As such, the EPA is not modifying the inspection schedule requirements
for NSPS subpart Kb because such a modification would be outside the
scope of this limited rulemaking which was intended only to incorporate
the proposed alternative standard. It was not the EPA's intent to make
changes to the underlying inspection schedules in NSPS subpart Kb.
However, the EPA will consider addressing the commenters' suggestion
should the Agency decide to propose additional amendments to NSPS
subpart Kb in the future via a different rulemaking process.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA make technical
corrections to 40 CFR 60.115b(a)(4) and (b) to correct previous
inadvertent errors in citations.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has corrected 40
CFR 60.115b(a)(4) to reference 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(1) and 40 CFR
60.115b(b) to reference 40 CFR 60.112b(a)(2). While this comment and
the EPA's associated revisions do not fit squarely within the scope of
the proposal to incorporate the alternative standard, and do address a
separate provision of NSPS subpart Kb unrelated to the alternative
standard, the EPA found it appropriate to make these changes because
commenters identified a genuine typographical error. The EPA's
revisions here will not alter how sources and/or the Agency have been
implementing NSPS subpart Kb in any way. The EPA finds it appropriate
and convenient to use this rulemaking to correct the inadvertent
typographical error.

IV. Impacts of the Final Rule

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    We estimate that nationwide VOC emissions reductions would range
from 65.8 tpy to 83.3 tpy as a result of the amendments. As explained
at proposal, the alternative standard allows owners or operators to
avoid emptying and degassing storage vessels in order to perform
certain inspections, thereby reducing emissions caused by degassing
vapors which have historically been vented to the atmosphere or sent to
control equipment. These emissions reductions were documented in the
memorandum, Impacts for Revision of Internal Floating Roof Storage
Vessel (Tank) Inspection Requirements Subject to 40 CFR part 60 Subpart
Kb (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0372-0005).

B. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that the amendments will result in a nationwide net
cost savings of between $768,000 and $1,091,000 per year (in 2019
dollars). For further information on the cost savings associated with
the amendments, see the memorandum, Impacts for Revision of Internal
Floating Roof Storage Vessel (Tank) Inspection Requirements Subject to
40 CFR part 60 Subpart Kb (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0372-0005).

C. What are the economic impacts?

    As noted earlier, we estimated a nationwide cost savings associated
with the amendments. Therefore, we do not expect the actions in this
rulemaking to result in business closures, significant price increases
or decreases in affected output, or substantial profit loss. For more
information, refer to the Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed
Alternative Standard Available to Floating Roof Storage Vessels (Tanks)
Subject to 40 CFR part 60 Subpart Kb, which is in the docket for this
rulemaking.

D. What are the benefits?

    The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission
reductions of VOC associated with this action. However, we expect this
action would provide benefits associated with VOC emission reductions.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found
in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1854.13. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    See section III.A of the preamble for the proposed rule (``What
actions are we proposing?'') for a description of the alternative
standard. Information about inspection activities related to NSPS
subpart Kb is collected to assure compliance with NSPS subpart Kb. Most
of the costs associated with the alternative standard are associated
with labor hours. The time needed to conduct an in-service top-side-of-
the-floating-roof visual inspection pursuant to the requirements in
NESHAP subpart WW is expected to be less than the time needed to
complete an out-of-service inspection pursuant to NSPS subpart Kb.
Therefore, we anticipate a cost savings. This ICR documents the
incremental burden imposed by the final amendments only. In summary,
there is a decrease in the burden (labor hours) documented in this ICR
due a reduction in the number of respondents (storage vessels subject
to NSPS subpart Kb) that would be required to empty and degas their
storage vessels equipped with an IFR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of storage
vessels constructed after July 23, 1984, that have capacity greater
than or equal to 75 m\3\ used to store volatile organic liquids
(including petroleum liquids) with a true vapor pressure greater than
or equal to 3.5 kPa, and storage vessels constructed after July 23,
1984, that have capacity between 75 and 151 m\3\ capacity for which the
true vapor pressure of the stored liquid is greater than or equal to 15
kPa.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Kb, and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW).
    Estimated number of respondents: 385 facilities.
    Frequency of response: Variable (storage vessel specific).
    Total estimated burden: A reduction of 6,210 hours (per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: A savings of $930,000 (per year), includes a
savings of $466,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance
costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The
alternative standard is optional; therefore, small entities are not
required to comply with the alternative.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It 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 action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation with tribal officials
during the development of this action; however, the Agency did not
receive a request for consultation. The EPA held a webinar with
communities on November 10, 2020, which included tribes during the
public comment period to inform them of the content of the proposed
rule and to encourage them to submit comments on the proposed rule.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Although the proposed
alternative is optional, the alternative standard is at least as
stringent as the current applicable requirements.
    As discussed above in section V.G, a webinar was held for community
groups which included environmental justice communities.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40
CFR part 60 as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Kb--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Vessels (Including Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels) for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After
July 23, 1984

0
2. Section 60.110b is amended by adding paragraph (e)(5) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.110b  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Option to comply with part 63, subpart WW, of this chapter.
Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) through (iv) of this
section, owners or operators may choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW, to satisfy the requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.112b through
60.117b for storage vessels either with a design capacity greater than
or equal to 151 m\3\ containing a VOL that, as stored, has a maximum
true vapor pressure equal to or greater than 5.2 kPa but less than 76.6
kPa, or with a design capacity greater than or equal to 75 m\3\ but
less than 151 m\3\ containing a VOL that, as stored, has a maximum true
vapor pressure equal to or greater than 27.6 kPa but less than 76.6
kPa.
    (i) The general provisions in subpart A of this part apply instead
of the general provisions in subpart A of part 63 of this chapter.
    (ii) Where terms are defined in both this subpart and 40 CFR part
63, subpart WW, the definitions in this subpart apply.
    (iii) Owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW, also must comply with the monitoring requirements of Sec.
60.116b(a), (c), (e), and (f)(1), except as specified in paragraphs
(e)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The reference to all records applies only to the records
required by Sec.  60.116b(c);
    (B) The reference to Sec.  60.116b(b) does not apply; and
    (C) The reference to Sec.  60.116b(g) does not apply.
    (iv) Owners or operators who choose to comply with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart WW, must also keep records and furnish reports as specified in
paragraphs (e)(5)(iv)(A) through (F) of this section.
    (A) For each affected facility, the owner or operator must notify
the Administrator at least 30 days before the first inspection is
conducted under 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW. After this notification is
submitted to the Administrator, the owner or operator must continue to
comply with the alternative standard described in this paragraph (e)(5)
until the owner or operator submits another notification to the
Administrator indicating the affected facility is using the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.112b through 60.117b instead of the
alternative standard described in this paragraph (e)(5). The compliance
schedule for events does not reset upon switching between compliance
with this subpart and 40 CFR part 63, subpart WW.
    (B) Keep a record of each affected facility using the alternative
standard described in this paragraph (e)(5) when conducting an
inspection required by Sec.  63.1063(c)(1) of this chapter.
    (C) Keep a record of each affected facility using the alternative
standard described in this paragraph (e)(5) when conducting an
inspection required by Sec.  63.1063(c)(2) of this chapter.
    (D) Copies of all records and reports kept pursuant to Sec.
60.115b(a) and (b) that have not met the 2-year record retention
required by the introductory text of Sec.  60.115b must be kept for an
additional 2 years after the date of submittal of the inspection
notification specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(A) of this section,
indicating the affected facility is using the requirements of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart WW.
    (E) Copies of all records and reports kept pursuant to Sec.
63.1065 of this chapter that have not met the 5-year record retention
required by the introductory text of Sec.  63.1065 must be kept for an
additional 5 years after the date of submittal of the notification
specified in paragraph (e)(5)(iv)(A) of this section, indicating the
affected facility is using the requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.112b
through 60.117b.
    (F) The following exceptions to the reporting requirements of Sec.
63.1066 of this chapter apply:
    (1) The notification of initial startup required under Sec.
63.1066(a)(1) and (2) of this chapter must be submitted as an
attachment to the notification required by Sec. Sec.  60.7(a)(3) and
60.115b(a)(1);
    (2) The reference in Sec.  63.1066(b)(2) of this chapter to
periodic reports ``when inspection failures occur'' means to submit
inspections results within 60 days of the initial gap measurements
required by Sec.  63.1063(c)(2)(i) of this chapter and within 30 days
of all other inspections required by Sec.  63.1063(c)(1) and (2) of
this chapter.

0
3. Section 60.115b is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) and the
introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.115b  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) After each inspection required by Sec.  60.113b(a)(3) that
finds holes or tears in the seal or seal fabric, or defects in the
internal floating roof, or other control equipment defects listed in
Sec.  60.113b(a)(3)(ii), a report shall be furnished to the
Administrator within 30 days of the inspection. The report shall
identify the storage vessel and the reason it did not meet the
specifications of Sec.  60.112b(a)(1) or Sec.  60.113b(a)(3) and list
each repair made.
    (b) After installing control equipment in accordance with Sec.
60.112b(a)(2) (external floating roof), the owner or operator shall
meet the following requirements.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-00678 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 11221-11223]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61639; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Listing
of Wilshire 5000 Total Market ETF and the Wilshire 4500 Completion ETF

March 3, 2010.
    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 February 25, 2010, 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 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 list and trade the shares of the Wilshire
5000 Total Market ETF and the Wilshire 4500 Completion ETF under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). The text of the proposed rule change is
available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
http://www.nyse.com.

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 list and trade the shares (``Shares'') of
the Wilshire 5000 Total Market ETF and the Wilshire 4500 Completion ETF
(each, a ``Fund'', and, collectively, ``Funds'') under NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Exchange's listing standards for
Investment Company Units (``ICUs'') \4\. Each of the Funds is a series
of the Claymore Exchange-Traded Fund Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Investment Company Unit is a security that represents an
interest in a registered investment company that holds securities
comprising, or otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an
index or portfolio of securities (or holds securities in another
registered investment company that holds securities comprising, or
otherwise based on or representing an interest in, an index or
portfolio of securities). See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Wilshire 5000 Total Market ETF seeks investment results that
correspond generally to the performance, before the Fund's fees and
expenses of the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index (``Wilshire
5000'').\5\ The Wilshire 4500 Completion ETF seeks investment results
that correspond generally to the performance, before the Fund's fees
and expenses of the Wilshire 4500 Completion Index (``Wilshire 4500'',
and, together with the Wilshire 5000, the ``Underlying Indexes'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Wilshire 5000 Index is designed to represent the total
U.S. equity market. The Wilshire 5000 Index includes all U.S. equity
securities that have readily available prices.
    \6\ The Wilshire 4500 Index is a subset of the Wilshire 5000
Total Market Index. Designed to represent the extended market, the
Wilshire 4500 Index is the Wilshire 5000 Index with the components
of the S&P 500 Index excluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the
Underlying Indexes for the Funds do not meet all of the ``generic''
listing requirements of Commentary .01(a)(A) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule
5.2(j)(3) applicable to listing of ICUs based on US indexes. The
Underlying Indexes meets all such requirements except for that set
forth in Commentary .01(a)(A)(5).\7\ Specifically, as of January 21,
2010, stocks comprising 99.952% of the weight of the Wilshire 5000 were
NMS stocks and stocks comprising 99.734% of the weight of the Wilshire
4500 were NMS stocks.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Commentary .01(a)(A)(5) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)
provides that all securities in the index or portfolio shall be U.S.
Component Stocks listed on a national securities exchange and shall
be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 U.S.C. 78a) (``Act''). NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) defines the term ``U.S. Component Stock'' as
an equity security that is registered under Sections 12(b) or 12(g)
of the Act or an American Depositary Receipt, the underlying equity
security of which is registered under Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the
Act.
    \8\ As of January 21, 2010, the Wilshire 5000 and Wilshire 4500
each included 197 non-NMS stocks. Such stocks are traded either on
the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink OTC Markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that: (1) Except for Commentary
.01(a)(A)(5) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3), the Shares of the
Fund currently satisfy all of the generic listing standards under NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); (2) the continued listing standards under
NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(3) and 5.5(g)(2) applicable to ICUs
shall apply to the Shares; and (3) the Trust is required to comply with
Rule 10A-3 \9\ under the Act for the initial and continued listing of
the Shares. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares will
comply with all other requirements applicable to ICUs including, but
not limited to, requirements relating to the dissemination of key
information such as the value of the Underlying Indexes and Intraday
Indicative Value, rules governing the trading of equity securities,
trading hours, trading halts, surveillance, and Information Bulletin to
ETP Holders, as set forth in Exchange rules applicable to ICUs and
prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules applicable
to the listing and trading of ICUs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.10A-3.
    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July
12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14) (order
approving generic listing standards for ICUs and Portfolio
Depositary Receipts); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41983
(October 6, 1999), 64 FR 56008 (October 15, 1999) (SR-PCX-98-29)
(order approving rules for listing and trading of ICUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Detailed descriptions of the Funds, the Underlying Indexes,
procedures for creating and redeeming Shares, transaction fees and
expenses, dividends, distributions, taxes, risks, and reports to be
distributed to beneficial owners of the Shares can be found in the
Registration Statement \11\ or on the Web site for the Funds (http://
www.claymore.com), as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the Claymore Exchange-Traded Fund Trust Registration
Statement on Form N-1A, dated December 18, 2009 (File Nos. 333-
134551; 811-21906) (``Registration Statement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis

    The proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) \12\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that 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, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an
additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance
competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and
the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
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 \16\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\19\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that the proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest and does not impose any
significant burden on competition. In addition, the Exchange believes
that it has developed adequate trading rules, procedures, surveillance
programs, and listing standards for the continued listing and trading
of the Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Commission notes that the Underlying Indexes for the Funds fail to
meet the requirements set forth in Commentary .01(a)(A)(5) to NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) by only a small amount and that Exchange has
represented that the Shares of the Funds currently satisfy all of the
other generic listing standards under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)
and all other requirements applicable to ICUs, as set forth in Exchange
rules and prior Commission orders approving the generic listing rules
applicable to the listing and trading of ICUs. Therefore, the
Commission believes that the listing and trading of the Shares do not
present any novel or significant issues or impose any significant
burden on competition, and that waiving the 30-day operative delay will
benefit the market and investors by providing market participants with
additional investing choices. For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as operative under upon filing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-09 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 Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-09. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-09 and should be submitted on or before March 31, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5066 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30065]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 5760-015 and 5762-009]

LaChute Hydro Company, Inc.; LaChute Hydro Company, LLC; Notice
of Transfer of Exemptions

    1. By letter filed April 24, 2015,\1\ William B. Conway, Jr.,
Counsel for Enel Green Power North America, Inc. (EGPNA),\2\ informed
the Commission that the exemptions from licensing for the Upper LaChute
River Project, FERC No. 5760 and the Lower LaChute River Project, FERC
No. 5762, reinstated November 15, 1984,\3\ have been transferred to
LaChute Hydro Company, LLC, an affiliate of Enel Green Power. The
projects are located on the LaChute River in Essex County, New York.
The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Seventeen other exempted projects which are to be
transferred were included in the April 24, 2015 letter. These
exemptions will be handled under separate proceedings.
    \2\ Enel Green Power North America, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Enel Green Power. Enel Green Power is a well-
capitalized publicly traded company.
    \3\ 29 FERC ] 61,174, Order Reinstating Exemptions and Denying
Applications for Preliminary Permit and License (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. LaChute Hydro Company, LLC is now the exemptee of the Upper
LaChute River Project, FERC No. 5760 and the Lower LaChute River
Project, FERC No. 5762. All correspondence should be forwarded to:
LaChute Hydro Company, LLC, c/o Enel Green Power North America, Inc.,
Attn: General Counsel, 1 Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA 01810.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12606 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P