MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		13 November 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Notes from State Technical Workgroup Meeting (10 July 2014) [DCN 0181]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      This was the sixteenth meeting for the EPA-state technical workgroup, which is discussing key issues related to the proposed NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (eRule). These discussions are informing the forthcoming supplemental Federal Register notice and they will continue beyond the publication of the supplemental notice to help EPA address state comments. EPA participants will include the OECA eRule Team as well as representatives from EPA's Office of Water and Office of Environmental Information. Technical workgroup members are listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The agenda for this meeting is also provided below. EPA is summarizing the notes from these discussions for the docket in order to provide transparency on EPA's outreach during the rulemaking process. The OECA eRule team will also be available for any other stakeholder group that would like to discuss the eRule.

Meeting Notes

     EPA (Mr. Carey Johnston) started the meeting by reminding state participants that in addition to raising questions during the technical workgroup meetings, states can email their questions on the proposed rule (including the data elements) to EPA. Questions on all aspects of the proposed rule can be sent to Mr. Johnston. Mr. Johnston then asked teleconference participants to focus on the pretreatment data elements. This was the second discussion on the pretreatment data elements as the group was not able to fully review all the pretreatment data elements in first discussion on June 29th (see DCN 0141). The source of these data elements includes NPDES permit applications and Notices of Intent (NOI) (see 30 July 2013; 78 FR 46096-46098), State or EPA pretreatment inspections or audits (Page 46102-46103), and POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report and SIU Periodic Compliance Reports in Municipalities without an Approved Pretreatment Program (Page 46111).

     Mr. Johnston started the technical discussion by reading the name of each data element along with the corresponding data description and regulatory or policy citation. After reading about five to ten elements at a time, Mr. Johnston asked for input from the technical workgroup. Below are some questions and comments from the technical workgroup. The first set of data elements discussed were the data elements that relate to the Annual POTW Pretreatment Program report (Page 46108-46111).

* For the SNC Published in Newspaper Flag data element, Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA drop the requirement that SNC be published in a newspaper. Ms. Beth Graves (ECOS) also suggested that EPA doesn't need to specify `Newspaper' in the data element.

* Michigan DEQ also noted that they have non-Federal POTW programs that they call `mini-programs.' They allow these mini-programs to implement the pretreatment program through oversight of industrial users and enforcement of Federal pretreatment standards.

* Texas noted that after a permit is re-issued the POTW needs to evaluate if any local limits need to be updated. Virginia DEQ noted that if a POTW is in compliance and nothing has changed then their agency doesn't make the POTW evaluate its local limits. New Jersey DEP state they it is a permit requirement in New Jersey permits that POTWs re-assess their local limits

* Tennessee, Michigan, and South Dakota noted that they require influent and effluent sampling at the POTW and to compare these data against the last technical evaluation. They also have the POTWs review their Industrial User (IU) list to see if there are any changes from the last review.

* Michigan DEQ and Kansas suggested that EPA drop the data element requirements for Removal Credits as so few POTWs have this authority. EPA estimates that approximately 4 of the roughly 1,600 POTW Pretreatment Programs have this authority.

* Michigan DEQ suggested that EPA add `current' to the Industrial User Control Mechanism Flag data element so that it reads as, "whether the Industrial User has a current Control Mechanism."

* Several states (MO, KS, TX, OK, and AR) ask EPA to make clear that the POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report data elements apply the current reporting period. For example, they suggested that EPA add `in the reporting period' in the description of these data elements to make clear that the reported data is for that reporting period.

* Texas suggested that the data related to flow be simplified.

* With respect to the Control Authority Resources data element, Texas suggested that it might be difficult for POTW Pretreatment Programs to provide a dollar amount on their annual budget. The commenter suggested that EPA re-word this data element to capture EPA's intent, which is to have the pretreatment program state whether the pretreatment program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program.

* Texas also suggested that EPA clarify that the reduced reporting data element applies to Middle Tier CIUs.

After the meeting EPA received comments from the Kansas Department of Health & Environment and Washington State Department of Ecology. They are presented in Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.

      State Technical Workgroup Meeting  -  NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
                                 10 July 2014
                                    Agenda

      1pm		Introduction/Roll Call

      1:10	Discussion of pretreatment data elements

      2:00		End of Call

Quick Reminder
   *    The technical workgroup is not a formal decision-making body. The workgroup is expected to develop, research, and evaluate options for consideration by EPA and state senior management.

   *    There are no formal quorum rules for the workgroup. Scheduled teleconferences will proceed with whichever workgroup members call in to participate.

   *    There will be no formal voting or consensus of the workgroup. Instead, the workgroup is expected to try to develop recommendations reflecting their various perspectives, not achieve consensus.

   *    Summaries of the workgroup's discussions will be prepared for and reviewed by the workgroup, for presentation to EPA senior management and other states and the rulemaking record. The discussions summaries will outline the major elements of the discussions, areas of agreement and any dissenting views.

Table 1: State Technical Workgroup Members

                                 Main Contact
                             State or Organization
                              Main Contact Email
                         State/Org. Present? (Yes/No)
                                 Sean  Rolland
                                     ACWA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Karen Lechner
                                      AK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Christy Monk
                                      AL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Eric Cleckler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Glenda Dean

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Teresa Marks
                                      AR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Pat Goff

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                   Mo Shafii

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Karen Bassett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Ramsey

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Ellen Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Wendy LeStarge
                                      AZ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Robin Belley

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  David Lelsz

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Andy Putnam
                                      CO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Elisa Willard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Bob Zimmerman
                                      DE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Beth Graves
                                     ECOS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Chris Klena
                                      FL
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                              Jessica Kleinfelter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Edward Smith

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Frances Carpenter

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Frances Carpenter
                                      GA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Tom Easterly
                                      IN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Jeremy Chenevert

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Mark Stanifer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Courtney Cswercko
                                      IA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Ed Dillingham
                                      KS
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Steve Caspers

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shelly Shores-Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Shawn Hokanson
                                      KY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Grace Scott
                                      MI
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Carla Davidson

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Ruth Wallace
                                      MO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Walter Fett

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                              Christopher Miller

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Tamara Dahl
                                      MN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Paul Scheirer

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  John Murphy
                                    NEIWPCC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Jason Lonardo
                                      NJ
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Julio Collazo

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Robert Wither
                                      NY
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Joseph DiMura

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                             Shellie Chard-McClary
                                      OK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Walker

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 David Pruitt

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jim Billings
                                      OR
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Sean Furjanic
                                      PA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Kent Woodmansey
                                      SD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                   Tim Flor

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Albert Spangler

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Lawrence Bunting
                                      TN
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      Yes
                                 Yatasha Moore

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                  Kim Wilson
                                      TX
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                               Rebecca Villalba

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Lynley Doyen

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                               Kimberly Shepard

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                 Jeff Studenka
                                      UT
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Jerome Brooks
                                      VA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Deborah Debiasi

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Phani Eturu

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                Stephen Bernath
                                      WA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Dave Knight

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                  Nancy Kmet

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Table 2: EPA Technical Workgroup Members

                                     Name
                                  EPA Office
                                     Email
                               Present? (Yes/No)
                                   Lisa Lund
                                  OECA/OC/IO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                John Dombrowski
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                  Andy Hudock
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Rochele Kadish
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                Carey Johnston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 David Sprague
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                Emery Harriston
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Rhonda Golder
                                 OECA/OC/ETDD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                 Jackie Clark
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Roy Chaudet
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Chuck Freeman
                                 OEI/OIC/IESD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 Aditi Prabhu
                                    OGC/WLO
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No
                                 David Apanian
                                   Region 4
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Jan Pickrel
                                  OW/OWM/WPD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      Yes
                                  Glynis Hill
                                 OP/ORPM/PRAD
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      No

 Attachment 1  -  Comments from Kansas Department of Health & Environment
From: Steve Caspers<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Johnston, Carey
Cc: Sean Rolland (srolland@acwa-us.org); Pickrel, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pickrel, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Knight (dakn461@ECY.WA.GOV); Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Kirsch, Susan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Electronic Reporting - Pretreatment data - comments - Part 2

Carey, as per your request, below are written comments regarding our conference call yesterday, for your consideration. Note: Some of these comments may not have come directly from me, but are included if we endorse them. Hopefully other States will provide their input as well.

   (1) SNC with pretreatment schedule flag: Suggest the word "enforceable" be added so the wording is "enforceable pretreatment schedules". This needed since not all pretreatment schedules are enforceable, unless they are placed in an administrative order, permit or other enforceable document.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make this change to Appendix A so that the data element reads as, "SNC with Pretreatment Enforceable Compliance Schedule Flag ."

   (2) Date of most recent adoption of technically based local limits and date of most recent technical evaluation of local limits: As noted on the phone, it appears these two data names and data descriptions were accidently switched. It is also not clear what is meant by the words "the date the CA evaluated the need for local limits". States have varied frequencies on how often they require head-works analysis to be performed and it also varies how extensive these re-evaluations are. In Kansas, local limits are required to be re-calculated when one of six criteria are met. (loss or gain of IUs, significant upgrade of a WWTP, change in WQ standards, a change in the city's NPDES limits, the 503 sludge limits change or if pass through or interference occurs). It is not necessarily based on whether the city's NPDES permit is expiring or not.  Maybe it would be more clear to ask for two items. One, the date the local limits were "last recalculated" and second, the date the last local limits "were adopted". These dates would be more clear, meaningful and easier to track.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements. EPA solicits comment on the following revisions to two data elements. EPA notes that if the Control Authority does not do an evaluation or adoption of local limits within a reporting period then these data elements can be left blank in that annual report.

Local Limits Adoption Date: This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority has adopted new local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day.

Local Limits Evaluation Date: This is the most recent date on which the Control Authority evaluated the need for local limits within the reporting period. The date must be provided in YYYY-MM-DD format where YYYY is the year, MM is the month, and DD is the day.

   (3) POTW discharge contamination indicator: It was suggested that this item be separated into two elements. One, problems related to upset and bypass and the second, those problems related to interference and pass through.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. EPA is using two data elements to track any issues at the POTW with one data element focusing on the discharge (POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator) and the other focusing on the biosolids management (POTW Biosolids Contamination Indicator). The first data element identifies "whether there have been any problems (e.g., pass-through or interference) with the receiving POTW's effluent discharge within the reporting period." The commenter's suggestion does not seem workable as the term `interference' includes events such as `upsets' and `bypass.' EPA is soliciting comment on retaining the two data elements and not trying to split  the POTW Discharge Contamination Indicator into two separate data elements.

   (4) Removal credits:  Since there are only a handful of programs in the nation with removal credits, it is suggested only the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported to OMB by EPA be requested and eliminate all of the other elements.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will delete the data elements related to removal credits from Appendix A.

   (5) Industrial user city: EPA indicated on the phone that it would not create a problem if the name of the city the IU was located in, was not the same name of the approved program the IU was located in. It was also pointed out that an IU could even be located in a different State than the approved program was located in, if the IU was near a state border.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. The tracking of locational data for Industrial Users is independent of the corresponding pretreatment program locational data. The commenter's scenario (different cities or states for an Industrial User and its pretreatment program) will not be a problem with EPA's electronic data collection tools or ICIS-NPDES.

   (6) IU control mechanism: It was suggested the words "active" be added to indicate that only control mechanisms that were active need to be reported, not the number of "expired or inactive" control mechanisms.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to these two data elements in Appendix A.

   (7) Number of IU sampling events: Not sure why this information is even being requested and why it would be important to know. The term "sampling events" could also be interpreted differently. For example, do "all" of the parameters mentioned in a permit need to be analyzed to be considered a "sampling event"? What if only a portion of the parameters were sampled, due to a non-compliance event?

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. The tracking of IU sampling events, those performed by the IU and those performed by the Control Authority, provides important information on the adequacy and robustness of the pretreatment program. These data will help the Approval Authority improve their oversight of the Control Authority. EPA will provided additional clarity in the Appendix A data elements regarding the sampling events that must be counted and reported on the annual report.

   (8) IU process flow rate: The current data description asks for "process" flow but it appeared the intent was to gauge the impact of the IU, on the POTW. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to request the "total" flow of the IU.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will simply the tracking of IU flow rate in Appendix A.

   (9) Control Authority budget resources: It appears the current data description requests the budget amount in dollars. This information will be very difficult to derive, since most programs do not have a line item budget. To better meet the intent of the regulations, it is suggested the data description be replaced with the following language or similar. "Does the POTW have adequate resources to properly implement and administer their pretreatment program?" This would be a "yes" or "no" answer.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will make the suggested change to the data element. EPA solicits comment on the following revision to this data element.

Control Authority Resources: A unique code/description that identifies whether the pretreatment program has sufficient resources (e.g., budget, full-time equivalent labor) to fully implement its pretreatment program.

Overall comments;

   (1) For items that will require a "yes or no" reply, it would be more clear to mention that in the data description.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more clarity on the data format.

   (2) There are inconsistencies when the data name refers to "Industrial Users" but the data description only specifies "Significant Industrial Users". SIUs are only a subset of IUs.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We added text in the data descriptions in Appendix A to provide more clarity. EPA is soliciting comment on any additional text that can provide more clarity.

   (3) The words "in the previous 12 months" is used often and can be interpreted differently on when the 12 months actually begin. Furthermore, not all programs use the calendar year that would better define the time period. Suggest the words "reporting period" be used in the data description, since this timeframe is clearly defined in control mechanisms. The down side is you will not be comparing all data for exactly the same time period, because varying report periods are utilized. However, you already have this problem with the current verbiage, because the 12 month time periods are not going to be the same either.

EPA Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We used the term, `in the reporting period,' in the Appendix A data elements to provide clarity on what actions and data should be reported in each annual report.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to working with EPA on making these changes a reality.

Steve Caspers, Pretreatment Specialist
Bureau of Water
Industrial Programs Section
Kansas Department of Health & Environment
E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>785.296.5551
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

            Attachment 2  -  Washington State Department of Ecology

From: Knight, David J. (SWRO) (ECY<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:46 PM
To: Johnston, Carey
Cc: Pickrel, Jan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Grace Scott (scottg@michigan.gov); Rebecca Villalba (rebecca.villalba@tceq.texas.gov); Steve Caspers<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kmet, Nancy (ECY<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Electronic Reporting - Pretreatment data - comments - Part 2

Carey, the electronic reporting rule (ERR) determines how data is collected and reported, and thus will have a significant bearing on program implementation.  Accordingly, I would like to make a few finer points I think are important to capture on this that haven't been brought to light.

Please consider changing Table 1 (data sources) of the FR notice NPDES Data Group #7 from "Pretreatment Control Authorities" to "POTWs that are Pretreatment Control Authorities".   Annual pretreatment reports are only required of POTWs administering pretreatment programs, not of States and EPA when they act as the Pretreatment Control Authority.  The referenced primary citation 403.12(i)) specifically only applies to delegated POTWs.  States assuming a POTW's responsibilities are required (by 40 CFR 403.10(e)) to carry out the provisions of 403.8(f), but are not required to submit annual reports per 403.12(i).  EPA has already developed a separate area (section 21  -  "Reports outside Delegated Pretreatment Programs" with data items 284-294) to capture the reporting needed on SIUs where States and EPA regions that act as control authorities.  Reporting requirements of states with respect to SIUs they permit (including middle tier CIUs, and NSCIUs) should be compiled there.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We added text in Table 1 to provide more clarity that these annual reports are to be submitted by POTWs and not states that are acting as the Control Authority. In particular, we added `POTW' to the title of this report so that it now reads as: POTW Pretreatment Program Annual Report.

For data relating to POTW Annual Reports (section 25), eight of the data items list the data sources as both `7' (Pretreatment Control Authorities) and `8' (SIUs outside of delegated POTW pretreatment programs).   Please consider removing the `8' for these basic data fields which identify the User and their flows.  For SIU's permitted by the State or EPA, they duplicate information which States and EPA would enter in sections 1 (basic facility information) & 2 (basic permit information) for their Permittees.  It would be better if information on SIU's outside of delegated POTW programs not already addressed by Sections 1 and 2 was consolidated in section 21 "Reports Outside Pretreatment Programs" (data items 284-294).

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. EPA has simplified the collection of facility and flow data in Appendix A. We are soliciting comments on these revisions.

Please consider removing the reference to PCI's and Audits in the title of Section 13.  The title now reads: "Pretreatment Information on Permit Applications, Notices of Intent, (or Pretreatment Compliance Audit or Inspection)...".   However, a different section (#20 - Compliance Monitoring Activity  -  Pretreatment Inspections and Audits) already addresses information needed to be compiled from PCI's and Audits.  It would be unmanageable to attempt to collect and enter all data listed in section 13 (including a number of data items on each SIU) as part of a PCI or Audit.  EPA should compile in section 20 all data which EPA expects to be tabulated from a PCI or Audit (except perhaps basic inspection data such as inspector, date, etc.).

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made the suggested change to Appendix A.

With respect to Steve Casper's comments, I would add two things:

With respect to comment (7) below, I presume that EPA's reason for ERR data fields relating to POTW sampling and inspection activities is to ensure that the POTW has fulfilled their legal obligation to inspect each SIU at least once annually and annually perform oversight monitoring for each SIU for all pollutants for which the SIU has permit limits.  If this is the case, the data field descriptions might make this a bit clearer by asking this more directly.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made changes to Appendix A. See response to comment #7 above.

With respect to overall comment (2) below, I would add that the pretreatment rules have not been as clear they might about POTW obligations with respect to IU's which are not SIU's, and the ERR could help foster consistency in the degree of reporting of these "other IU's".  My understanding is that information relating to an IU that is not an SIU is only required to be reported when the IU meets applicable SNC criteria.  But EPA's definition of `SIU' allows (at 40CFR403.3(v)(3)) a CA to determine that an IU meeting the SIU criteria is not an SIU.  And while this provision requires the action be consistent with 403.8(f)(6), that doesn't stipulate how such determinations need to be documented, and listing of such Users isn't specifically reinforced in annual reporting 403.12(i)(1).

Because 403.8(f)(6) is primarily focused on an initial list, and 403.12(i)(1) is focused on updates to prior lists, there may be any number of high flow and/or high strength industries which have at some point been delisted and are no longer permitted, tracked, or reported on in any manner.  Because the rules don't require specific documentation be kept or for the POTW to periodically revisit such de-listings, there is an unaddressed potential for inconsistent application of this provision.  To address this, I believe it would be appropriate and consistent with 403.8(f)(6) and 403.12(i) to specifically require POTWs annually provide an updated list of their IU's which includes all SIU's and all IU's which otherwise meet the criteria for being an SIU (at 403.3(v)(1)), but have been delisted, and give the reason for the delisting.

EPA Response: Thank you for this comment. We have made changes to Appendix A so that POTWs can update their list of IUs through the annual report.

Dave Knight

David J. Knight P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Southwest Regional Office, Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
PO Box 47775, Olympia WA 98504-7775
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18257-18259]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0209; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-127-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-100, -200,
and -300 series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires replacing
certain parking brake accumulators. Since we issued that AD, we have
determined that it is necessary to protect the hydraulic system and
airplane structure from possible damage by any faulty screw cap or end
cap of any accumulator. This proposed AD would require installing
restraint devices around the parking brake accumulator end caps. We are
proposing this AD to prevent failure of the parking brake accumulator
screw cap or end cap resulting in loss of the number 2 hydraulic system
and damage to airplane structures, which could adversely affect the
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: Send comments on or before April 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0209;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-127-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 28, 2012, we issued AD 2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77
FR 42956, July 23, 2012). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on certain Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series
airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR 42956,
July 23, 2012), we have determined that it is necessary to protect the
hydraulic system and airplane structure from possible damage by any
faulty screw cap or end cap of any accumulator. Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-29R1, dated May 24, 2012
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Seven cases of on-ground hydraulic accumulator screw cap or end
cap failure have been experienced on CL-600-2B19 (CRJ) aeroplanes,
resulting in loss of the associated hydraulic system and high-energy
impact damage to adjacent systems and structure. To date, the lowest
number of flight cycles accumulated at the time of failure has been
6991.
    Although there have been no failures to date on any DHC-8
aeroplanes, similar accumulators to those installed on the CL-600-
2B19, Part Numbers (P/N)0860162001 and<PHONE_NUMBER> (Parking Brake
Accumulator), are installed on the aeroplanes listed in the
Applicability section of this [TCCA] directive.
    A detailed analysis of the systems and structure in the
potential line of trajectory of a failed screw cap/end cap for the
accumulator has been conducted. It has identified that the worst-
case scenarios would be the loss of number 2 hydraulic system, and
damage to aeroplane structures.
    This [original TCCA] directive [which corresponds to FAA AD
2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR 42956, July 23, 2012)] gives
instructions to determine the part number and serial number of the
existing parking brake accumulator, and where applicable, replace
the accumulator.
    Revision 1 of this [TCCA] AD mandates the installation of
restraint devices around [all] the parking brake accumulator end
caps to hold them in place in the event of an end cap failure.

Uncontained failure of the parking brake accumulator screw caps and/or
end caps could result in loss of the number 2 hydraulic system, and
damage to airplane structures, and could adversely

affect the controllability of the airplane. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Service Bulletin 8-32-169, Revision A,
dated December 16, 2011. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 129 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118
(77 FR 42956, July 23, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently
required actions is $170 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 15 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $5,302 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $848,433, or $6,577 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR July 23, 2012), and adding the
following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2013-0209; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-127-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 10, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR
42956, July 23, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-101, -102, -103,
-106, -201, -202, -301, -311, and -315 airplanes, certificated in
any category, serial numbers 003 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic accumulator screw
cap or end cap failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the parking brake accumulator screw caps or end caps resulting in
loss of the number 2 hydraulic system and damage to airplane
structures, which could adversely affect the controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Retained Inspection and Replacement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR 42956, July 23, 2012), with no
changes. Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after August 27,
2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-14-04), whichever occurs first:
Inspect to determine the part number (P/N) and serial number of the
parking brake hydraulic accumulator, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-170,
dated February 25, 2011. A review of airplane maintenance records is
acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial
number of the parking brake hydraulic accumulator can be
conclusively determined from that review.
    (1) For accumulators not having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>: No
further action is required by this paragraph.
    (2) For accumulators having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>: Before
further flight, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the serial number is listed in the table in paragraph
3.B.(2) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-170, dated February 25,
2011: No further action is required by this paragraph.
    (ii) If the serial number is not listed in the table in
paragraph 3.B.(2) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-170, dated
February 25, 2011: Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after
August 27, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-14-04, Amendment 39-
17118 (77 FR 42956, July 23, 2012)),

whichever occurs first, replace the accumulator with a new non-
suspect accumulator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-172, dated March
15, 2011.

(h) Retained Parts Installation Prohibition

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-14-04, Amendment 39-17118 (77 FR 42956, July 23, 2012), with no
changes. As of August 27, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-14-
04), no person may install a parking brake accumulator, P/N
0860162001 or<PHONE_NUMBER> with a serial number that is not listed in
the table in paragraph 3.B.(2) of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-
170, dated February 25, 2011, on any airplane.

(i) New Requirement of this AD: Install Restraint Devices on All
Airplanes

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Install restraint devices around
the parking brake hydraulic accumulator end caps by incorporating
Bombardier ModSum 8Q101901, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-169, Revision A,
dated December 16, 2011.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-169, dated
November 25, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2011-29R1,
dated May 24, 2012; and the service information identified in
paragraphs (m)(1)(i) through (m)(1)(v) of this AD; for related
information.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-169, Revision A, dated
December 16, 2011.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-170, dated February 25,
2011.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-32-172, dated March 15,
2011.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 5, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05813 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37513-37514]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13692]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0405]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sloop Channel and Long Creek,
Nassau, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7,
across Long Creek and the Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8,
across Sloop Channel, at Nassau, New York. This temporary deviation is
necessary to facilitate public safety during a public event, the Annual
Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on June 25, 2016, to
11:59 p.m. June 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0405] is available
at 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 deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. Leung-Yee, Project
Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Town of Hempstead Department of Public
Safety requested and the bridge owner of both bridges, the State of New
York Department of Transportation, concurred with this temporary
deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public
event, the Annual Salute to Veterans and Fireworks Display.
    The Loop Parkway Bridge, mile 0.7, across Long Creek has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 21 feet at mean high water and 25
feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are
found at 33 CFR 117.799(f).
    The Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridge, mile 12.8, across Sloop
Channel has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 22 feet at
mean high water and 25 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge
operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(h).

    Long Creek and Sloop Channel are transited by commercial fishing
and recreational vessel traffic.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Loop Parkway and the
Meadowbrook State Parkway Bridges may remain in the closed position
between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on June 25, 2016 (rain date: June 26,
2016 between 9:30 p.m. and 11:59 p.m.).
    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do
so at anytime. The bridges will not be able to open for emergencies and
there are no immediate alternate routes for vessels to pass.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 6, 2016.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-13692 Filed 6-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 246 (Monday, December 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 77447]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-14-000]

California Wind Energy Association, First Solar, Inc. v.
California Independent System Operator Corporation, Southern California
Edison Company; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on December 17, 2013, pursuant to sections 205 and
206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA); 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e, and Rule
206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2013), California Wind Energy
Association and First Solar, Inc. (collectively, Complainants) filed a
formal complaint against the California Independent System Operator
Corporation (CAISO) and Southern California Edison Company
(collectively, Respondents), alleging that a pending transfer of
certain transmission assets will have unjust and unreasonable rate
consequences for generators affected by the transfer. Complainants
request that the Commission direct CAISO to retain control over the
affected Antelope Valley 66 kV transmission assets, as more fully
described in this complaint.
    The Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts for the Respondents as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 6, 2014.

    Dated: December 17, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-30518 Filed 12-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10521-10522]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02839]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79984; SR-CHX-2016-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the CHX
Liquidity Taking Access Delay

February 7, 2017.
    On September 6, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt the CHX Liquidity Taking
Access Delay (``LTAD''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on September 22, 2016.\3\ On November
1, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On December 20, 2016,

the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act,\6\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\7\ The Commission received 25 comments on the proposed rule
change, including responses to certain comment letters by the
Exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78860 (September 16,
2016), 81 FR 65442 (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79216, 81 FR 78228
(November 7, 2016). The Commission designated December 21, 2016, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79608, 81 FR 95238
(December 27, 2016).
    \8\ See letters from: (1) Douglas A. Cifu, Chief Executive
Officer, Virtu Financial, dated September 21, 2016; (2) R.T.
Leuchtkafer, dated September 29, 2016; (3) Adam Nunes, Head of
Business Development, Hudson River Trading LLC, dated October 6,
2016; (4) Beste Bidd, Trader, dated October 9, 2016; (5) Joanna
Mallers, Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, dated October 13,
2016; (6) John L. Thornton, Co-Chair, Hal S. Scott, Director, and R.
Glenn Hubbard, Co-Chair, Committee on Capital Markets Regulation,
dated October 13, 2016; (7) Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director
and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities, dated October 13, 2016;
(8) Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy Markets Association,
dated October 13, 2016; (9) Eric Budish, Professor of Economics,
University of Chicago Booth School of Business, dated October 13,
2016; (10) Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and Corporate
Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, dated October 14, 2016; (11)
James J. Angel, Associate Professor, McDonough School of Business,
Georgetown University, dated October 16, 2016; (12) Eric Swanson,
EVP, General Counsel and Secretary, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated
October 25, 2016; (13) Eric Pritchett, Chief Executive Officer,
Potamus Trading LLC, dated October 26, 2016; (14) James Ongena,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, CHX, dated October 28,
2016; (15) Steve Crutchfield, Head of Market Structure, CTC Trading
Group, L.L.C., dated November 1, 2016; (16) Boris Ilyevsky,
Brokerage Director, Interactive Brokers LLC, dated November 7, 2016;
(17) Alex Jacobson, dated November 9, 2016; (18) Brian Donnelly,
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Volant Trading, dated November
28, 2016; (19) R.T. Leuchtkafer, dated December 14, 2016; and (20)
Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, dated
December 16, 2016; (21) John P. Comerford, Managing Director,
Instinet, LLC, dated December 21, 2016; (22) Joanna Mallers,
Secretary, FIA Principal Traders Group, dated January 17, 2017; (23)
Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and Chief Legal Officer,
Citadel Securities, dated January 17, 2017; (24) John A McCarthy,
General Counsel, KCG Holdings, Inc., dated January 23, 2017; and
(25) James Ongena, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
CHX, dated February 3, 2017. All of the comment letters are
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-chx-2016-16/chx201616.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2017, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-CHX-2016-16).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02839 Filed 2-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59376-59379]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0546; FRL-10189-01-R6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas; Control of Emissions
From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the CAA
section 111(d) state plan submitted by the State of Arkansas for
sources subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Emission
Guidelines (EG). The Arkansas MSW landfills plan was submitted to
fulfill the state's obligations under CAA section 111(d) to implement
and enforce the requirements under the MSW Landfills EG. The EPA is
proposing to approve the state plan and amend the agency regulations in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0546, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Karolina Ruan Lei, (214)
665-7346, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karolina Ruan Lei, EPA Region 6
Office, Air and Radiation Division--State Planning and Implementation
Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Out of an abundance
of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6
office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there will be a delay in processing mail and no
courier or hand deliveries will be accepted. Please call or email the
contact listed above if you need alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger
public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(d) addresses the process by
which the EPA and states regulate standards of performance for existing
sources. When NSPS are promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and
EPA regulations require that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG)
to regulate the same pollutants from existing facilities. While NSPS
are directly applicable to new sources, EG for existing sources
(designated facilities) are intended for states to use to develop a
state plan to submit to the EPA.
    State plan submittal and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be
consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption
and submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40
CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the
EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. Once
approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a
state does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is
responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a federal plan.
    The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing
landfills were first promulgated by EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40 CFR
part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). On August 29,
2016, the EPA finalized revisions to the MSW landfills NSPS and EG in
40 CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59332; 81 FR
59313). The 2016 EG revision updates the control requirements and
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW
landfill sources.
    The current MSW landfills EG, found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf,
concerns the regulation of landfill gas and its

components, including methane, from MSW landfills for which
construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or
before July 17, 2014. The deadline to submit a state plan to the EPA
was May 30, 2017. On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfills
federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO (86 FR 27756). The MSW
landfills federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO, applies to
states that do not have an EPA-approved state plan. The MSW landfills
federal plan is currently in effect in Arkansas.
    In order to fulfill obligations under CAA section 111(d), the
Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, Division of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a state plan for the control of
emissions from existing MSW landfills for the State of Arkansas on June
20, 2022, and supplemented its submittal on August 24, 2022, and August
31, 2022.\1\ The Arkansas MSW landfills plan implements and enforces
the applicable provisions under the MSW landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf, and additionally meets the relevant requirements of the CAA
section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.
The Arkansas submittal and the supplements are included in the public
docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0546).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Arkansas plan submitted by ADEQ does not cover sources
located in Indian country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation

    The EPA has evaluated the Arkansas MSW landfills plan to determine
whether the plan meets applicable requirements from the MSW landfills
EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the CAA section 111(d)
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The EPA's
detailed rationale and discussion on the Arkansas MSW landfills plan
can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in
the docket for this rulemaking.
    The Arkansas state plan submittal package includes all materials
necessary to be deemed administratively and technically complete
according to the criteria of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The state plan
document (the ``Arkansas State Plan for 111(d) Designated Facilities'')
includes all the necessary authority for the implementation and
enforcement of the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines in the State.
Specifically, the State appropriately incorporated all applicable EG
requirements from 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, into the Arkansas
Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC) Rule 19, Chapter 17.
Both the adopted state plan document and the relevant APC&EC
regulations, as well as all other relevant plan submittal materials may
be found in the docket for this action. Necessary State legal and
enforcement authorities required for plan approval are located
elsewhere in Arkansas's statute, rules and regulations and have been
reviewed and approved of by the EPA in the course of prior state
implementation plan as well as section 111(d) and/or 129 state plan
approvals. See 40 CFR part 52, subpart E, and 40 CFR part 62, subpart
E.
    The Arkansas MSW landfills plan has been evaluated in detail in the
TSD. Our evaluation demonstrates that the Arkansas MSW landfills plan
meets the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf and subpart B, and
is consistent with the requirements for an approvable section 111(d)
state plans for MSW landfills.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the Arkansas MSW landfill plan
submitted by ADEQ in accordance with the requirements of section 111(d)
of the CAA and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart E, to codify EPA's
approval. The EPA is proposing to find that the Arkansas MSW landfill
plan is at least as protective as the Federal requirements provided
under the MSW landfills EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.
Once approved by the EPA, the Arkansas MSW landfills plan will become
federally enforceable.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \2\ EPA is providing
additional analysis of environmental justice associated with this
action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information to the
public, not as a basis of our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA conducted screening analyses using EJSCREEN, an environmental
justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally
consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and
demographic indicators.\3\ The EJSCREEN tool presents these indicators
at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user-specified
``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\4\ An individual CBG is a
cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally
contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is not a tool for
performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that
provides an initial representation of indicators related to
environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying
data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data
which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported
data).\5\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have summarized
EJSCREEN data within larger ``buffer'' areas covering multiple block
groups and representing the average resident within the buffer areas
surrounding the MSW landfills. We present EJSCREEN environmental
indicators to help screen for locations where residents may experience
a higher overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block
group with the same total population. These indicators of overall
pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone concentration, a score for traffic
proximity and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint
indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk
management plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \4\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \5\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error),
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.

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

(RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.\6\ EJSCREEN also provides
information on demographic indicators, including percent low-income,
communities of color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school
education. The EPA prepared EJSCREEN reports covering buffer areas of
approximately 3-mile radii around the existing MSW landfills in
Arkansas. Table 1 presents a summary of results from the EPA's
screening-level analysis for the areas surrounding each MSW landfill
compared to the U.S. as a whole, where the landfill was located in an
area where one or more of the EJ indices were greater than the 80th
percentiles (the full, detailed EJSCREEN reports are provided in the
docket for this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For additional information on environmental indicators and
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,''
Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf.

                          Table 1--EJSCREEN Analysis Summary for Existing Arkansas MSW Landfills With EJ Indices Above 80%tile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Values for buffer areas (radius) for each MSW landfill and the U.S. (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Variables              Little Rock Municipal                              Fulton Landfill--       City of West Helena
                                     Landfill (Pulaski, 3    ModelFill Landfill      Cloverdale (Benton, 3     Landfill (Phillips,          U.S.
                                            miles)           (Pulaski, 3 miles)             miles)                  3 miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
    Particulate matter (PM2.5),     9.79 [mu]g/m\3\ (80th  9.9 [mu]g/m\3\ (82nd   9.39 [mu]g/m\3\ (72nd       8.68 [mu]g/m\3\       8.74 [mu]g/m\3\ (--)
     annual average.                 %ile).                 %ile).                 %ile).                      (52nd %ile).
    Ozone, summer seasonal average  41.4 ppb (40th %ile).  41.6 ppb (43rd %ile).  43.1 ppb (58th %ile)......  40.4 ppb (34th %ile)  42.6 ppb (--)
     of daily 8-hour max.
    Traffic proximity and volume    120 (37th %ile)......  650 (74th %ile)......  210 (48th %ile)...........  110 (35th %ile).....  710 (--)
     score*.
    Lead paint (percentage pre-     0.11% (41st %ile)....  0.39% (71st %ile)....  0.1% (40th %ile)..........  0.26% (60th %ile)...  0.28% (--)
     1960 housing).
    Superfund proximity score *...  0.033 (29th %ile)....  0.039 (34th %ile)....  0.018 (15th %ile).........  0.27 (90th %ile)....  0.13 (--)
    RMP proximity score *.........  1.1 (78th %ile)......  2.7 (94th %ile)......  1.5 (85th %ile)...........  0.37 (53rd %ile)....  0.75 (--)
    Hazardous waste proximity       1.9 (70th %ile)......  2 (70th %ile)........  0.7 (49th %ile)...........  1.4 (64th %ile).....  2.2 (--)
     score *.
Demographic Indicators:
    People of color population....  74% (79th %ile)......  77% (81st %ile)......  31% (49th %ile)...........  73% (79th %ile).....  40% (--)
    Low-income population.........  56% (86th %ile)......  53% (83rd %ile)......  39% (67th %ile)...........  63% (90th %ile).....  31% (--)
    Linguistically isolated         4% (69th %ile).......  4% (66th %ile).......  6% (76th %ile)............  0% (45th %ile)......  5% (--)
     population.
    Population with less than high  22% (82nd %ile)......  15% (69th %ile)......  20% (79th %ile)...........  19% (77th %ile).....  12% (--)
     school education.
    Population under 5 years of     10% (87th %ile)......  7% (60th %ile).......  5% (44th %ile)............  8% (77th %ile)......  6%
     age.
    Population over 64 years of     10% (30th %ile)......  12% (40th %ile)......  14% (49th %ile)...........  19% (69th %ile).....  16% (--)
     age.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in meters to the road. The Superfund
  proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in
  kilometers.

    This proposed rule is proposing to approve Arkansas's MSW Landfills
Plan, received on June 20, 2022, in accordance with section 111(d) of
the CAA. The Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan incorporates federal
requirements for MSW landfills, as specified in the MSW landfills EG at
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, which are also implemented under the MSW
Landfills Federal Plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. The MSW
Landfills Federal Plan was implemented by EPA in Arkansas as Arkansas
did not have an approved MSW landfills plan addressing applicable EG
requirements. These EG requirements implemented under the MSW Landfills
Federal Plan and now incorporated by Arkansas in its MSW landfills plan
is designed to result in significant emissions reductions for MSW
landfills, as described in the Federal Registers for the MSW landfill
rules (80 FR 52100; 81 FR 59276). Landfill gas is a natural byproduct
of the decomposition of organic material in landfills and is composed
of roughly 50% methane, 50% carbon dioxide (CO2), and less
than 1% non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) by volume, which include
volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP).\7\
VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone formation; exposure to PM2.5
and ozone is associated with significant public health effects,
including (1) cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, (2)
respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, (3)
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, and (4) premature
mortality.\8\ Hazardous air pollutants may cause cancer or other
serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth
defects.\9\ In addition, methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a
global warming potential 28-36 times greater than CO2.
Therefore, we believe that these requirements for existing MSW
landfills and resulting emissions reductions have climate benefits and
have contributed to reduced environmental and health impacts on all
populations impacted by emissions from these sources in Arkansas,
including people of color and low-income populations, and will continue
to do so under Federal oversight. This proposed rule is not anticipated
to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice
concerns because it is not anticipated to result in or contribute to
emissions increases in Arkansas. If finalized as proposed, EPA's
approval of the Arkansas MSW Landfills Plan will make the Plan and the
corresponding MSW landfills EG requirements incorporated into the Plan
federally enforceable by EPA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 80 FR 52099, August 27, 2015.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-management-process/managing-air-quality-human-health-environmental-and-economic#what.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA
section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429;
40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Thus,
in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions, EPA's role is
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Act and implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This proposed rule also does not have Tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

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

    Dated: September 26, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-21245 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P