Startup and Shutdown Scenarios for Solid Fuel Boilers
Controls
Scenario
Potential Compliance Issue
Suggested Solution
Any
Startup on clean fuel, engage non-listed controls prior to adding solid fuel.
May be an issue with clean fuel availability.  May have CO issue with transition from gas or liquid fuel to solid fuel, may not be an issue for 30-day average depending on compliance margin.
Expand list of clean fuels to include all Other Gas 1 fuels, biodiesel, fuels that meet the HCl, Hg, TSM limits through fuel analysis, and other clean fuels as determined by permitting authorities.  Provide adequate length of time for startup period to cover transition from startup fuel to solid fuel. (as defined below)
Wet
Startup on solid fuel
Shouldn't be an issue for operating parameter monitoring  -  can start wet controls prior to startup (depending on design of wet controls, may not be able to meet operating parameter limits instantaneously, but should be able to meet 30-day average).

Need to address units that share a common control device that startup separately.

Could have issues meeting 30-day rolling CO CEMS limit if enough time is not given for startup.  Need to differentiate between cold startup (need more time) and hot restart (need less time).
Startup ends either when the boiler or process heater has continuously maintained a steam production rate of at least 25% of maximum steam or heat output at normal operating pressure for 4 continuous hours after a cold startup or 1 hour after a hot restart and when all control devices are in stable operation or when the boiler or process heater is operating above an alternate minimum operationally stable output flow rate and pressure for a minimum time, as specified in a site-specific start-up plan.  This would also apply to units sharing a common control device that start up at separate times (separate startup period occurs for each unit).
For units sharing a common control device that are starting up sequentially, startup ends either when the last boiler or process heater to start has continuously maintained a steam production rate of at least 25% of maximum steam or heat output at normal operating pressure for 4 continuous hours after a cold startup or 1 hour after a hot restart and when all control devices are in stable operation or when the last boiler or process heater is operating above an alternate minimum operationally stable output flow rate and pressure for a minimum time, as specified in a site-specific start-up plan.
Dry
Startup on solid fuel
Can't startup ESP until certain flue gas temperature and oxygen level are reached.  NFPA 85- Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code, 2011 Edition, Section 6 Multiple Burner Boilers (firing oil, gas, or PC) requires purging of precipitators prior to initial firing to prevent a precipitator spark from igniting an explosive mixture of unburned fuel.

Manufacturer and operating company procedures may include a requirement to be operating on main burners with adequate flue gas temperature and low enough oxygen levels prior to ESP energization to limit potential ignition of unburned fuel by a precipitator spark.

Need time within the "startup" period for the combustion unit firing primary fuel(s) and all exempted air pollution controls to reach stable operating conditions relative to the start of steam or process heater output to the distribution system.

Need to get better definition of end of startup if heat or steam is immediately supplied upon ignition of fuel.

Need to address units that share a common control device that start up separately.  Could have issues meeting 24-hour block opacity or 30-day rolling CO CEMS limit if enough time is not given for startup.

Need to differentiate between cold restart (need more time) and hot restart (need less time)
ESPs must be included in the Table 3, item 5 list of exempted air pollution controls that must be started as expeditiously as possible.

Startup ends either when the boiler or process heater has continuously maintained a steam production rate of at least 25% of maximum steam or heat output at normal operating pressure for 4 continuous hours after a cold restart or 1 hour after a hot restart and when all control devices are in stable operation or when the boiler or process heater is operating above a minimum operationally stable output flow rate and pressure for a minimum time, as specified in a site-specific start-up plan. This would also apply to units sharing a common control device that start up at separate times (separate startup period occurs for each unit).

For units sharing a common control device that are starting up sequentially, startup ends either when the last boiler or process heater to start has continuously maintained a steam production rate of at least 25% of maximum steam or heat output at normal operating pressure for 4 continuous hours after a cold startup or 1 hour after a hot restart and when all control devices are in stable operation or when the last boiler or process heater is operating above an alternate minimum operationally stable output flow rate and pressure for a minimum time, as specified in a site-specific start-up plan.
Any
Unit begins startup, reaches a certain minimum stable load, then there is an equipment problem that results in "failed startup."
All of the above.
Need to be sure that this entire period is considered startup, even if you reach the minimum load threshold.  If, for example, the end of startup is 25% load plus 4 hours, the unit has to be over 25% for 4 continuous hours.
Wet
Lose solid fuel feed, takes time to get auxiliary fuel going to boiler or there is no auxiliary fuel available. Sometimes wet fuel can cause high O2 conditions, which will trip the ESP, which will trip the fuel feed.  Sometimes there are problems with the equipment used to supply the solid fuel that cause loss of fuel feed.
Losing fuel feed would trigger a shutdown  -  however, shutdown as EPA currently interprets would not be completed if the unit continues supplying useful steam until fuel feed is restored.  We can't classify these periods as malfunctions in all cases and these periods are not normal operation.  We need to be able to call them shutdown, or we don't know how to set up recordkeeping because we don't have certainty on how to classify these periods.  Operating parameters would probably be okay on a 30-day rolling average basis.  Whether or not there was an issue meeting 30-day rolling CO CEMS limit if this is not shutdown would depend on compliance margin and length of event.
The shutdown definition should accommodate the scenario where fuel feed is reinitiated before the unit ceases to supply steam.  Facilities need to be able to call it a shutdown, even if fuel supply is restored.  Facilities should not be forced to take the boiler down fully before reinitiating a startup  -  this would be uneconomical and could result in more emissions.   The end of this period is a hot restart, and then the startup work practices would apply until certain load and time conditions are met.  Could revise end of shutdown definition: "Shutdown ends when there is both no steam or heat being supplied and no fuel being combusted in the boiler or process heater or when startup is initiated by reintroducing fuel to the boiler or process heater after fuel feed has been halted."
Dry
Lose solid fuel feed, takes time to get auxiliary fuel going to boiler or there is no auxiliary fuel available. Sometimes wet fuel can cause high O2 conditions, which will trip the ESP, which will trip the fuel feed.  Sometimes there are problems with the equipment used to supply the solid fuel that cause loss of fuel feed.
Losing fuel feed would trigger a shutdown  -  however, shutdown as EPA currently interprets would not be completed if the unit continues supplying useful steam until fuel feed is restored.

Also, NFPA 85 Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code, 2011 Edition, Section 6 Multiple Burner Boilers (firing oil, gas, or PC) requires tripping of electrostatic precipitators as part of a master fuel trip (MFT) to prevent a precipitator spark from igniting an explosive mixture of unburned fuel.

We can't classify these periods as malfunctions in all cases and these periods are not normal operation.  We need to be able to call them shutdown, or we don't know how to set up recordkeeping because we don't have certainty on how to classify these periods.  Could have issues meeting 24-hour block opacity or 30-day rolling CO CEMS limit if this is not shutdown, depending on compliance margin, type of unit, length of event.
Need to be able to call it a shutdown, even if we get fuel back; emissions will be greater if we have to complete a shutdown before we can start back up.  The end of this period is a hot restart, and then the startup work practices would apply until certain load and time conditions are met.  Could revise end of shutdown definition: "Shutdown ends when there is both no steam or heat being supplied and no fuel being combusted in the boiler or process heater or when startup is initiated by reintroducing fuel to the boiler or process heater after fuel feed has been halted."

ESPs must be included in the Table 3, item 6 list of exempted air pollution controls that are not required to be operated during shutdown.
Any
Begin shutdown upon halting fuel feed to the boiler.  For some designs, there is still fuel burning in the boiler.
Current definition says "Shutdown begins either when none of the steam and heat from the boiler or process heater is supplied for heating and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose, or at the point of no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater, whichever is earlier."  This could be interpreted that shutdown does not begin unless no fuel is burning or no steam/heat is being supplied. In some boiler designs, fuel continues to burn after fuel feed stops.
EPA should clarify that fuel being fired in this case means fuel being fed to the combustion unit.
Wet
More than one unit vents to a wet control device, one unit shuts down, the other unit stays operating.
For some wet control designs, the pressure drop depends on the flow through the scrubber.  If only one unit is operating, the operating parameter limits established during the performance test with both units in operation may not be achievable.
Not sure if there is a way to address this in the rule, or if EPA would advise facilities to submit a request for alternate monitoring and establish different operating scenarios, such as an alternate operating limit with fewer units in operation.  This is similar to the question of whether operating parameters must be maintained if a unit burns gas for an extended period of time and emissions controls for PM, HCl, Hg are not needed.  This is probably covered under a request to permit alternate operating scenarios as well.

For reference- Subpart DDDDD definitions:
    Startup means either the first-ever firing of fuel in a boiler or process heater for the purpose of supplying steam or heat for heating and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose, or the firing of fuel in a boiler after a shutdown event for any purpose. Startup ends when any of the steam or heat from the boiler or process heater is supplied for heating, and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a boiler or process heater for any purpose. Shutdown begins either when none of the steam from the boiler is supplied for heating and/or producing electricity, or for any other purpose, or at the point of no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater, whichever is earlier. Shutdown ends when there is no steam and no heat being supplied and no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater.
From Table 3:
5. An existing or new boiler or process heater subject to emission limits in Table 1 or 2 or 11 through 13 to this subpart during startup
You must operate all CMS during startup.
For startup of a boiler or process heater, you must use one or a combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane, distillate oil, syngas, ultra-low sulfur diesel, fuel oil-soaked rags, kerosene, hydrogen, paper, cardboard, refinery gas, and liquefied petroleum gas.

If you start firing coal/solid fossil fuel, biomass/bio-based solids, heavy liquid fuel, or gas 2 (other) gases, you must vent emissions to the main stack(s) and engage all of the applicable control devices except limestone injection in fluidized bed combustion (FBC) boilers, dry scrubber, fabric filter, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). You must start your limestone injection in FBC boilers, dry scrubber, fabric filter, SNCR, and SCR systems as expeditiously as possible. Startup ends when steam or heat is supplied for any purpose.

You must comply with all applicable emission limits at all times except for startup or shutdown periods conforming with this work practice. You must collect monitoring data during periods of startup, as specified in § 63.7535(b). You must keep records during periods of startup. You must provide reports concerning activities and periods of startup, as specified in § 63.7555.
6. An existing or new boiler or process heater subject to emission limits in Tables 1 or 2 or 11 through 13 to this subpart during shutdown
You must operate all CMS during shutdown.
While firing coal/solid fossil fuel, biomass/bio-based solids, heavy liquid fuel, or gas 2 (other) gases during shutdown, you must vent emissions to the main stack(s) and operate all applicable control devices, except limestone injection in FBC boilers, dry scrubber, fabric filter, SNCR, and SCR.

You must comply with all applicable emissions limits at all times except for startup or shutdown periods conforming with this work practice. You must collect monitoring data during periods of shutdown, as specified in § 63.7535(b). You must keep records during periods of shutdown. You must provide reports concerning activities and periods of shutdown, as specified in § 63.7555.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32679-32681]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12919]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1309]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and

where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1309, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Community                 Community map repository address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           San Bernardino, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.r9map.org/Pages/ProjectDetailsPage.aspx?choLoco=36&choProj=439
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Fontana......................  City Hall, Engineering
                                        Department, 8353 Sierra Avenue,
                                        Fontana, CA 92335.
City of Ontario......................  City Hall, Engineering Department
                                        Public Counter, 303 East B
                                        Street, Ontario, CA 91764.
City of Rancho Cucamonga.............  City Hall, Engineering Department
                                        Plaza Level, 10500 Civic Center
                                        Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
                                        91730.
Unincorporated Areas of San            Public Works Department, Water
 Bernardino County.                     Resources Department, 825 East
                                        Third Street, San Bernardino, CA
                                        92415.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Lincoln County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://riskmap6.com/Community.aspx?cid=154&sid=3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Ruidoso Downs................  City Hall, 123 Downs Drive,
                                        Ruidoso Downs, NM 88346.
Unincorporated Areas of Lincoln        Lincoln County Floodplain
 County.                                Manager's Office, 115 Kansas
                                        City Road, Ruidoso, NM 88345.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-12919 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43645-43646]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 151

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0410]
RIN 1625-AC13

Navigation and Navigable Waters; Technical, Organizational, and
Conforming Amendments

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register
on July 7, 2014, that made non-substantive corrections throughout Title
33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. One of the amendatory
instructions, which was intended to update a mailing stop number,
contained a reference to the wrong paragraph in a section. This rule
corrects that error.

DATES: Effective on July 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Crissy, U.S. Coast Guard,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Viewing Documents Associated With This Rule

    To view the original rule, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this reulemaking. You
may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Background

    On July 7, 2014, the Coast Guard published its annual technical
amendment final rule (79 FR 38422) to make non-substantive changes to
Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Need for Correction

    In attempting to amend 33 CFR 151.66(c)(3)(iv)(C) to reflect the
correct mail stop for Commandant (CG-OES), we mistakenly referred to
paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C) in amendatory instruction 106 on page 79 FR
38435 of that rule. This rule corrects that error by amending the
correct paragraph.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 151

    Administrative practice and procedure, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Accordingly, 33 CFR part 151 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendment:

PART 151--VESSELS CARRYING OIL, NOXIOUS LIQUID SUBSTANCES, GARBAGE,
MUNICIPAL OR COMMERCIAL WASTE, AND BALLAST WATER

0
1. The authority citation for part 151 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321, 1902, 1903, 1908; 46 U.S.C. 6101;
Pub. L. 104-227(110 Stat. 3034); Pub. L. 108-293 (118 Stat. 1063),
Sec.  623; E.O. 12777, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp. p. 351; 322; DHS Delegation
No. 0170.1, sec. 2(77).

Sec.  151.66  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  151.66(c)(3)(iv)(C), remove the text ``Stop 7126'' and add,
in its place, the text ``Stop 7509''.

    Dated: July 22, 2014.
Katia Cervoni,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-17687 Filed 7-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 32670-32675]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60201; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-062]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Program for NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 26, 2009, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving the
proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    NASDAQ is proposing to extend for three months the pilot that
created the NASDAQ Last Sale (``NLS'') market data products. NLS allows
data distributors to have access to real-time market data for a capped
fee, enabling those distributors to provide free access to the data to
millions of individual investors via the internet and television.
Specifically, NASDAQ offers the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ'' and
``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' data feeds containing last sale
activity in U.S. equities within the NASDAQ Market Center and reported
to the jointly operated FINRA/NASDAQ Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/
NASDAQ TRF''). The purpose of this proposal is to extend the existing
pilot program for three months.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Nasdaq will file a proposed rule change within thirty days
seeking permanent approval oft [sic] the Nasdaq Last Sale pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This pilot program supports the aspiration of Regulation NMS to
increase the availability of proprietary data by allowing market forces
to determine the amount of proprietary market data information that is
made available to the public and at what price. During the current
pilot period, the program has vastly increased the availability of
NASDAQ proprietary market data to individual investors. Based upon data
from NLS distributors, Nasdaq believes that since its launch in July
2008, the NLS data has been viewed by over 50,000,000 investors on Web
sites operated by Google, Interactive Data, and Dow Jones, among
others.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic NASDAQ Manual found at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

7039. NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds

    (a) For a three-month pilot period commencing on [April] July 1,
2009, NASDAQ shall offer two proprietary data feeds containing real-
time last sale information for trades executed on NASDAQ or reported to
the NASDAQ/FINRA Trade Reporting Facility.
    (1) ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ'' shall contain all transaction
reports for NASDAQ-listed stocks; and
    (2) ``NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex'' shall contain all such
transaction reports for NYSE- and Amex-listed stocks.
    (b) Each distributor of the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds may elect
between two alternate fee schedules, depending upon the choice of
distributors to report usage based on either a username/password
entitlement system or a quote counting mechanism or both. All fees for
the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products are ``stair-stepped'' in that the
fees are reduced for distributors with more users but the lower rates
apply only to users in excess of the specified thresholds rather than
applying to all users once a threshold is met. In addition, there shall
be a maximum fee of $50,000 per month for NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ
and NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex.
    (1) Firms that choose to report usage for either a username/
password entitlement system or quote counting mechanism or both shall
elect between paying a fee for each user or a fee for each query. A
firm that elects to pay for each query may cap its payment at the
monthly rate per user. Firms shall pay the following fees:
(A) NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Users/mo                         Price                    Query                    Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-9,999..............................  $0.60/usermonth........  0-10M..................  $0.003/query.
10,000-49,999........................  $0.48/usermonth........  10M-20M................  $0.0024/query.
50,000-99,999........................  $0.36/usermonth........  20M-30M................  $0.0018/query.
100,000+.............................  $0.30/usermonth........  30M+...................  $0.0015/query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Users/mo                         Price                    Query                    Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-9,999..............................  $0.30/usermonth........  0-10M..................  $0.0015/query.
10,000-49,999........................  $0.24/usermonth........  10M-20M................  $0.0012/query.
50,000-99,999........................  $0.18/usermonth........  20M-30M................  $0.0009/query.
100,000+.............................  $0.15/usermonth........  30M+...................  $0.000725/query.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Firms that choose not to report usage based on either a
username/password entitlement system or quote counting mechanism or
both may distribute NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products under alternate fee
schedules depending upon whether they distribute data via the Internet
or via Television:
    (A) The fee for distribution of NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via
the Internet shall be based upon the number of Unique Visitors to a
website receiving such data. The number of Unique Visitors shall be
validated by a vendor approved by NASDAQ in NASDAQ's sole discretion.
(i) NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Unique visitors                        Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-100,000.................................  $0.036/Unique Visitor.
100,000-1M................................  $0.03/Unique Visitor.
1M+.......................................  $0.024/Unique Visitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 (ii) NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Unique visitors                        Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-100,000.................................  $0.018/Unique Visitor.
100,000-1M................................  $0.015/Unique Visitor.
1M+.......................................  $0.012/Unique Visitor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Distribution of NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via Television
shall be based upon the number of Households receiving such data. The
number of Households to which such data is available shall be validated
by a vendor approved by NASDAQ in NASDAQ's sole discretion.
(i) NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Households                           Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1M......................................  $0.0096/Household.
1M-5M.....................................  $0.0084/Household.
5M-10M....................................  $0.0072/Household.

10M+......................................  $0.006/Household.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Households                           Monthly fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-1M......................................  $0.0048/Household.
1M-5M.....................................  $0.0042/Household.
5M-10M....................................  $0.0036/Household.
10M+......................................  $0.003/Household.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) A Distributor that distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products
via multiple distribution mechanisms shall pay all fees applicable to
each distribution mechanism, provided that there shall be a discount
from the applicable Television rate as follows:
    (i) 10 percent reduction in applicable Television fees when a
Distributor reaches the second tier of Users, Queries, or Unique
Visitors for its non-Television users;
    (ii) 15 percent reduction in applicable Television fees when a
Distributor reaches the third tier of Users, Queries, or Unique
Visitors for its non-Television users; and
    (iii) 20 percent reduction in applicable Television fees when a
Distributor reaches the fourth tier of Users, Queries, or Unique
Visitors for its non-Television users.
    (c) All Distributors of a NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feed shall also pay
a monthly fee of $1,500.

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 III 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Prior to the launch of NLS, public investors that wished to view
market data to monitor their portfolios generally had two choices: (1)
Pay for real-time market data or (2) use free data that is 15 to 20
minutes delayed. To increase consumer choice, NASDAQ proposed a pilot
to offer access to real-time market data to data distributors for a
capped fee, enabling those distributors to disseminate the data via the
Internet and television at no cost to millions of Internet users and
television viewers. NASDAQ now proposes a three-month extension of that
pilot program on the same terms as applicable today.
    The NLS pilot created two separate ``Level 1'' products containing
last sale activity within the NASDAQ market and reported to the
jointly-operated FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. First, the ``NASDAQ Last Sale for
NASDAQ Data Product,'' a real-time data feed that provides real-time
last sale information including execution price, volume, and time for
executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported
to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF. Second, the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex
data product that provides real-time last sale information including
execution price, volume, and time for NYSE- and Amex-securities
executions occurring within the NASDAQ system as well as those reported
to the FINRA/NASDAQ TRF.
    NASDAQ established two different pricing models, one for clients
that are able to maintain username/password entitlement systems and/or
quote counting mechanisms to account for usage, and a second for those
that are not. Firms with the ability to maintain username/password
entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms will be eligible
for a specified fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ
Product and a separate fee schedule for the NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/
Amex Product: Firms that were unable to maintain username/password
entitlement systems and/or quote counting mechanisms will also have
multiple options for purchasing the NASDAQ Last Sale data. These firms
chose between a ``Unique Visitor'' model for Internet delivery or a
``Household'' model for television delivery. Unique Visitor and
Household populations must be reported monthly and must be validated by
a third-party vendor or ratings agency approved by NASDAQ at NASDAQ's
sole discretion. In addition, to reflect the growing confluence between
these media outlets, NASDAQ offered a reduction in fees when a single
distributor distributes NASDAQ Last Sale Data Products via multiple
distribution mechanisms.
    Second, NASDAQ established a cap on the monthly fee, currently set
of $50,000 per month for all NASDAQ Last Sale products. The fee cap
enables NASDAQ to compete effectively against other exchanges that also
offer last sale data for purchase or at no charge.
    Finally, as with the distribution of other NASDAQ proprietary
products, all distributors of the NASDAQ Last Sale for NASDAQ and/or
NASDAQ Last Sale for NYSE/Amex products would pay a single $1,500/month
NASDAQ Last Sale Distributor Fee in addition to any applicable usage
fees. The $1,500 monthly fee will apply to all distributors and will
not vary based on whether the distributor distributes the data
internally or externally or distributes the data via both the Internet
and television.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ as stated above, in that it provides an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of
NASDAQ data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f-3(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASDAQ Last Sale market data products proposed here appear to
be precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded
that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the market in proprietary data--
would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and
competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

    By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability
of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals
of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If
the free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
sold should be set by the market as well.

    NASDAQ's ability to price its Last Sale Data Products is
constrained by (1) competition between exchanges and other trading
platforms that compete with each other in a variety of dimensions; (2)
the existence of inexpensive real-time consolidated data and free
delayed consolidated data; and (3) the inherent contestability of the
market for proprietary last sale data.
    The market for proprietary last sale data products is currently
competitive and inherently contestable because there is fierce
competition for the inputs necessary to the creation of proprietary
data and strict pricing discipline for the proprietary products
themselves. Numerous exchanges compete with each other for listings,
trades, and market data itself, providing virtually limitless
opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish to produce and distribute
their own market data. This proprietary data is produced by each
individual exchange, as well as other entities, in a vigorously
competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including eleven self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as broker-dealers (``BDs'') and aggregators such as
the DirectEdge electronic communications network (``ECN''). Each SRO
market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions,
and an ever-increasing number of FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting
Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to attract internalized transaction
reports. It is common for BDs to further and exploit this competition
by sending their order flow and transaction reports to multiple
markets, rather than providing them all to a single market. Competitive
markets for order flow, executions, and transaction reports provide
pricing discipline for the inputs of proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, and ECNs that currently produce
proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it provides
further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each SRO,
TRF, ECN and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary data
products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including NASDAQ, NYSE, Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ECN or BD can combine with any other ECN, broker-dealer, or
multiple ECNs or BDs to produce jointly proprietary data products.
Additionally, non-broker-dealers such as order routers like LAVA, as
well as market data vendors, can facilitate single or multiple broker-
dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential sources
of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ECNs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace writ
large.
    Consolidated data provides two additional measures of pricing
discipline for proprietary data products that are a subset of the
consolidated data stream. First, the consolidated data is widely
available in real time at $1 per month for non-professional users.
Second, consolidated data is also available at no cost with a 15- or
20- minute delay. Because consolidated data contains marketwide
information, it effectively places a cap on the fees assessed for
proprietary data (such as last sale data) that is simply a subset of
the consolidated data. The mere availability of low-cost or free
consolidated data provides a powerful form of pricing discipline for
proprietary data products that contain data elements that are a subset
of the consolidated data, by highlighting the optional nature of
proprietary products.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters
that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only that data which will enable them to attract ``eyeballs''
that contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers,
such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data
only if it promotes trading and generates sufficient commission
revenue. Although the business models may differ, these vendors'
pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse to purchase any
proprietary data product that fails to provide sufficient value. NASDAQ
and other producers of proprietary data products must understand and
respond to these varying business models and pricing disciplines in
order to successfully market proprietary data products.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, and BATS Trading. Today, BATS
publishes its data at no charge on its website in order to attract
order flow, and it uses market data revenue rebates from the resulting
executions to maintain low execution charges for its users.
    Several ECNs have existed profitably for many years with a minimal
share of trading, including Bloomberg Tradebook and NexTrade.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, Reuters and Thomson. New entrants are already on the
horizon, including ``Project BOAT,'' a consortium of financial
institutions that is assembling a cooperative trade collection facility
in Europe. These institutions are active in the United States and could
rapidly and profitably export the Project BOAT technology to exploit
the opportunities offered by Regulation NMS.
    In establishing the price for the NASDAQ Last Sale Products, NASDAQ
considered the competitiveness of the market for last sale data and all
of the implications of that competition. NASDAQ believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish a fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fee and an equitable allocation of fees among all users.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary,
the NASDAQ Last Sale

Products respond to and enhance competition that already exists in the
market.
    On May 28, 2008, the Internet portal Yahoo! announced that it would
offer its Web site viewers real-time last sale data provided by BATS
Trading. NASDAQ's last sale data products would compete directly with
the BATS product disseminated via Yahoo!. Since that time, BATS has
attracted additional purchasers of its last sale product that is free
of charge or, at least, has not been the subject of a proposed rule
change * * * [sic]
    In addition, as set forth above, the market for last sale data is
already competitive, with both real-time and delayed consolidated data
as well as the ability for innumerable entities to begin rapidly and
inexpensively to offer competitive last sale data products. Moreover,
the New York Stock Exchange distributes competing last sale data
products and has reduced the price of its product. Under the
deregulatory regime of Regulation NMS, there is no limit to the number
of competing products that can be developed quickly and at low cost.
The Commission should not stand in the way of enhanced competition.

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

    Three comment letters were filed regarding the proposed rule change
as originally published for comment. NASDAQ responded to these comments
in a letter dated December 13, 2007. Both the comment letters and
NASDAQ's response are available on the SEC Web site at http://
www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2006-060/nasdaq2006060.shtml.

III. 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-NASDAQ-2009-062 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-NASDAQ-2009-062. 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 inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; 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-NASDAQ-2009-062 and should be submitted on or before
July 29, 2009.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, to extend the
pilot program for three months, is consistent with the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\8\ In particular, it is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that the rules of a
national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers
and other parties using its facilities, and Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\10\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\12\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \13\ NASDAQ is an exclusive processor of its last sale data
under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes data on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission approved the fee for the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds
for a pilot period which runs until June 30, 2009.\14\ The Commission
notes that the Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program for three
months. The Commission did not receive any comments on the previous
extensions of the pilot program.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57965 (June 16,
2008), 73 FR 35178 (June 20, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-060); 58894
(October 31, 2008), 73 FR 66953 (November 12, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2008-
086); 59186 (December 30, 2008), 74 FR 743 (January 7, 2009) (SR-
NASDAQ-2008-103); and 59652 (March 31, 2009) 74 FR 15533 (April 6,
2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-027).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 2, 2008, the Commission issued an approval order
(``Order'') that sets forth a market-based approach for analyzing
proposals by self-regulatory organizations to impose fees for ``non-
core'' market data products, such as the NASDAQ Last Sale Data
Feeds.\16\ The Commission believes that Nasdaq's proposal to
temporarily extend the pilot program is consistent with the Act for the
reasons noted in the Order.\17\ The Commission believes that approving
NASDAQ's proposal to temporarily extend the pilot

program that imposes a fee for the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds for an
additional three months will be beneficial to investors and in the
public interest, in that it is intended to allow continued broad public
dissemination of increased real-time pricing information. In addition,
extending the pilot program for an additional three months will allow
NASDAQ, consistent with its representation, to file within 30 days, the
public to comment on, and the Commission to analyze consistent with the
Order and in light of Section 19(b) of the Act, a proposal to
permanently approve the fee for NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (Order Setting Aside Action by
Delegated Authority and Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
NYSE Arca Data).
    \17\ See supra note 14.
    \18\ The Exchange has represented that it will file a proposed
rule change within thirty days of filing of this proposal seeking
permanent approval of the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds pilot program.
See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule
change before the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice
of filing thereof in the Federal Register. Accelerating approval of
this proposal is expected to benefit investors by continuing to
facilitate their access to widespread, free, real-time pricing
information contained in the NASDAQ Last Sale Data Feeds. Therefore,
the Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\19\ to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated
basis to extend the operation of the pilot until September 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2009-062) is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis until September 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Elizabeth M. Murphy.
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16002 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

September 1, 2021

Ms. Delores Rodgers-Smith
Section Chief, RCRA Programs and
Materials Management Section
US EPA, Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104

Re: Florida's Program Revision Application for RCRA Cluster XXVIII

Dear Ms. Rodgers-Smith:

Enclosed is Florida's Program Revision Application for RCRA Cluster XXVIII. I hereby certify, pursuant to my authority as General Counsel of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and in accordance with Section 3006(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) [42 United States Code (USC) 6901 et seq.], and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 271, that the laws of the State of Florida provide adequate authority to carry out the hazardous waste program set forth in the Program Description submitted by FDEP on June 25, 1984 and the Program Description Addenda submitted on March 4, 1987; June 20, 1988; July 31, 1990; May 27, 1991; July 25, 1991; November 30, 1991; July 17, 1992; December 22, 1993; September 28, 1993; February 24, 1994; February 14,  1996; June 21, 1996; September 1, 1998; July 14, 2000; February 14, 2001; February 7, 2002; August 12, 2003; September 14, 2006; August 23, 2007; August 28, 2008; August 10, 2009; July 1, 2010; December 9, 2011; August 30, 2012; August 31, 2013; August 22, 2014; August 17, 2015; August 25, 2016; and August 31, 2018, September 16, 2019, and September 1, 2021, to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart A.

The specific authorities provided are contained in statutes and regulations lawfully adopted at the time this Statement is signed and which are in effect now. The statutory authorities for the State of Florida are documented in the state's RCRA Statutory Checklist, dated December 30, 2005, which is attached to this statement in Appendix A. The statutes relied on in previously-approved applications for authorization have not been amended, modified or revised by statute or judicial decision in a way that diminishes or interferes with FDEP authority to carry out the previously authorized hazardous waste program to meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 271, Subpart A.

The State of Florida incorporates by reference (IBR) federal hazardous waste regulations in order to maintain the required equivalence and consistency. The provisions for which the State of Florida is seeking authorization (Cluster XXVIII) are documented in the attached "IBR Regulatory Documentation for Federal Provisions for Which Florida is Seeking Authorization" in Appendix B, which addresses Checklist 242, Universal Waste Regulations: Addition of Aerosol Cans. Differences between the State of Florida's provisions and the Federal provisions, if any, are noted on the IBR Regulatory Documentation. A copy of the certified changes to Rules 62-730.020, 62-730.030, 62-730.180, 62-730.183, 62-730.185, and 62-730.220, Florida Administrative Code, is provided in Appendix C. The official State of Florida regulations referred to in this application may be found in Chapter 62-730, Florida Administrative Code, effective October 30, 2020, provided in Appendix D.

This certification supplements my predecessors' certifications of June 21, 1984; March 12, 1987; June 16, 1988; June 13, 1990; May 20, 1991; May 24, 1991; May 28, 1991;
October 9, 1991; July 14, 1992; September 24, 1993; February 27, 1994; August 2, 1994; January 25, 1996; May 20, 1996; May 21, 1996; August 27, 1998; July 11, 2000;
February 23, 2001; December 14, 2001; September 8, 2006; August 22, 2007; August 27, 2008; August 7, 2009; June 24, 2010; December 2, 2011; August 29, 2012; August 31, 2013, August 22, 2014; August 17, 2015; August 25, 2016, August 31, 2018, and September 16, 2019.

I further certify that the General Counsel of the FDEP does not have a Seal of Office to affix to this document.

If you have any questions regarding this certification, please contact Chad Stevens, Chief Deputy General Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>

Sincerely,

Justin G. Wolfe
General Counsel

CC: 	Michell M. Smith, FDEP, Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Program and Permitting, Environmental Manager

	Jeff Gregg, FDEP, Division of Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Compliance, Environmental Manager


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32021]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0339]

Safety Zones: Fireworks Displays in the Captain of the Port
Columbia River Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for fireworks
displays in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone from May
2012 through September 2012. This action is necessary to ensure the
safety of the crews onboard the vessels displaying the fireworks, the
maritime public, and all other observers. During the enforcement period
for each specific safety zone, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port
Columbia River or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR Part 165.1315 will be enforced as
listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Division, MSU
Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
regulation in 33 CFR 165.1315 for fireworks displays in the Columbia
River Captain of the Port Zone during the dates and times listed as
follows:
    (1) Portland Rose Festival Fireworks Display, Portland, OR: May 25,
2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (2) Tri-City Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Display, Columbia Park,
Kennewick, WA: July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (3) Cedco Inc. Fireworks Display, North Bend, OR: July 3, 2012 from
8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (4) Astoria 4th of July Fireworks, Astoria, OR: July 4, 2012 from
8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (5) Oregon Food Bank Blues Festival Fireworks, Portland, OR: July
4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (6) Oregon Symphony Concert Fireworks Display, Portland, OR: August
30, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (7) Florence Chamber 4th of July Fireworks Display, Florence, OR:
July 4, 2012 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (8) Oaks Park July 4th Celebration, Portland, OR: July 4, 2012 from
9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (9) Rainier Days Fireworks Celebration, Rainier, OR: July 14, 2012
from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (10) Independence Day at the Port, Ilwaco, WA: July 7, 2012 from 10
p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
    (11) Milwaukie Centennial Fireworks Display, Milwaukie, OR: July
28, 2012 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (12) Splash Aberdeen Waterfront Festival, Aberdeen, WA: July 4,
2012 from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m.
    (13) City of Coos Bay July 4th Celebration, Coos Bay, OR: July 4,
2012 from 9:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.
    (14) Arlington Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Display, Arlington,
OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (15) East County 4th of July Fireworks, Gresham, OR: July 4, 2012
from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (16) Port of Cascade Locks July 4th Fireworks Display, Cascade
Locks, OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (17) Astoria Regatta Association Fireworks Display, Astoria, OR:
August 11, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (18) City of Washougal July 4th Fireworks Display, Washougal, WA:
July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (19) City of St. Helens 4th of July Fireworks Display, St. Helens,
OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (20) Waverly Country Club 4th of July Fireworks Display, Milwaukie,
OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (21) Booming Bay Fireworks, Westport, WA: July 4, 2012 from 8:30
until 11:30 p.m.
    (22) Hood River 4th of July, Hood River, OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30
p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    (23) Rufus 4th of July Fireworks, Rufus, OR: July 4, 2012 from 8:30
p.m. until 11:30 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR part 165.1315 and 33 CFR part 165
subparts C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zones
without permission of the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his
designated representative. See 33 CFR 165.1315 and 33 CFR 165 Subparts
C for additional information and prohibitions. Persons or vessels
wishing to enter the safety zones may request permission to do so from
the Captain of the Port Columbia River or his designated representative
via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local enforcement agencies in enforcing this
regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1315 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2012-13032 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10172-10174]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0796]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chester River, Chestertown, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the drawbridge operation
regulations of the S213 Bridge, at mile 26.8, across Chester River at
Chestertown, MD. This final rule allows the bridge to open on signal if
at least six hours notice is given and will provide for the reasonable
needs of navigation, due to the anticipated infrequency of requests for
vessel openings of the drawbridge.

DATES: This rule is effective April 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and related materials received from the public, as
well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the
docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0796 and are available online by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0796 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Regulatory Information

    On September 25, 2009, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chester River,
Chestertown, MD'' in the Federal Register (74 FR 48889). We received no
comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and
none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Maryland Department of Transportation-State Highway Administration
(MDOT) is responsible for the operation of the S213 Bridge, at mile
26.8, across Chester River at Chestertown, MD. MDOT requested advance
notification for vessel openings year-round due to the anticipated
infrequency of requests for vessel openings of the drawbridge.

    The S213 Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position to
vessels of 12 feet, above mean high water.
    The existing operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.551
require the draw to open on signal from April 1 through September 30
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. At all other times, the draw shall open on signal
if at least six hours notice is given.
    Bridge opening data, supplied by MDOT, revealed a small amount of
yearly openings of the draw span. In the past five years from 2004 to
2008, the bridge opened for vessels 42, 38, 54, 34 and 34 times,
respectively. Due to the anticipated infrequency of requests for vessel
openings of the drawbridge, MDOT requested to change the current
operating regulation by requiring the draw of the bridge to open on
signal if at least six hours notice is given year-round.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard did not receive any comments on the NPRM.
Therefore, no changes were made to the final rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We reached this conclusion based on the fact that the changes have
only a minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge.
Mariners can minimize delay by ensuring the necessary notice is given
six hours or more in advance of the scheduled transit.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels needing to
transit the bridge who cannot clear the bridge at its closed position.
This rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because any operator of an affected vessel may
still transit the bridge if that operator provides the necessary notice
six hours or more in advance of the scheduled transit.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM (SNPRM) we offered
to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.551 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.551  Chester River.

    The draw of the S213 Bridge, mile 26.8, at Chestertown, shall open
on signal if at least six hours notice is given.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Wayne E. Justice,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-4648 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P