Internet Daemon Owner<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 06/02/2005 01:50 PM	To

James Michael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, GailAnn Cooper/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

(152135045) F019 Comment Submission

11a. Mr.

12. Last Name

Coss

13. First Name

Raymond

14. Job Title

Senior Counsel

15. Organization

Nissan North America, Inc.

16. Address

983 Nissan Drive, Bin 17U

17. City

Smyrna

18. State

TN

19. Zip Code

37167

20. Telephone

615-220-8072

21. Fax

615-459-1684

22. E-mail

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 23. Question/Comments

Dear Sir/Madam:  Please accept and consider these comments from Nissan

North America.  We have two major automotive manufacturing plants in the

U.S.

COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF RULEMAKING TO AMEND HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTING F019

•   Nissan fully supports the Agency amending hazardous waste listing F019

to exclude from the listing wastewater treatment sludges from the zinc

phosphating conversion process used in the automobile manufacturing

industry.  This material was never intended to be included in the original

F019 listing.  The original listing was based on an evaluation of chromium

phosphating, not the zinc phosphating process used in the automobile

industry.  The chromium phosphating process generates hexavalent chromium

and cyanides, for which EPA concluded the waste should be classified as

hazardous, under the statutory definition.  The zinc phosphating process,

on the other hand, does not generate or use any of the 40 CFR Part 261

Appendix VIII hazardous constituents.

•   Clarifying the scope of the F019 listing is a more appropriate means

to address this issue than the continued reliance on individual delisting

petitions.  Site-specific individual delisting petitions are extremely

inefficient and resource intensive for both the industrial source and

EPA.  An individual petition is to show that a site-specific waste stream,

which is otherwise within the scope of the listing, should be excluded.

It is, therefore, understandable that there is a high burden on the

petitioner to show that a site-specific waste is does not possess any of

the characteristics that caused the generic waste stream to be listed, and

that EPA spends considerable time and resources on a detailed analysis of

each petition.   Here the record clearly shows that the process is uniform

across the industry.  Indeed, twelve individual delisting petitions for

this waste have been granted over the last seven years, and none denied.

In this case, the uniformity of the waste st!

 ream and its analysis by EPA justifies a generic revision to the listing.

•   EPA should approach this clarification based on the original

methodology required for listing a waste, not by the elaborate and overly

complex methodologies that EPA has imposed on individual petitions for

delisting.  There is a difference in the way EPA approaches the delisting

process, and the initial listing decisions.  In evaluating this

clarification, EPA should follow the approach taken with the initial

listing determinations, which focus on TCLP or other criteria set forth in

40 CFR § 261.11 to determine if this type of waste should be considered a

listed waste.  This is the approach taken by EPA in determining that

zirconium phosphating performed during wasting of aluminum cans “should

not have been included in the F019 listing because it is not hazardous.”

55 Fed. Reg. 5340 (February 14, 1990).   The DRAS and EPA CMTP models

while potentially useful in evaluating individual delisting petitions,

with their evidentiary burden, is not appropriate in reviewing the ch!

 aracteristics of a waste stream from an entire industry sector.

Likewise, this clarification should not focus on setting

concentration-based limits on a wide array of constituents as has been

done in individual delisting petitions.  Instead, Nissan urges EPA to

evaluate the waste stream based upon the statutory criteria.

End of comments by Nissan North America, Inc.

Host Environment

HTTP_USER_AGENT

submit

Send Question or Comment

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

WARNING NOTICE

This electronic mail originated from a federal government

computer system of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).  Unauthorized access or use

of this EPA system may subject violators to criminal,

civil and/or administrative action.  For official

purposes, law enforcement and other authorized personnel

may monitor, record, read, copy and disclose all

information which an EPA system processes.  Any person's

access or use, authorized and unauthorized, of this EPA

system to send electronic mail constitutes consent to these

terms.

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

This information is for tracking purposes only.

Submitting script: /cgi-bin/mail.cgi

Submitting host: <IP_ADDRESS> (<IP_ADDRESS>)

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR

1.1.4322)

Referred: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/f019/f019-form.htm

TSSMS: epaoswer

Mail to File: f019.txt

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10123-10124]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the Pediatric Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the Pediatric
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency regarding ethical protections for
children in FDA-regulated clinical trials.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Monday, March 23, 2015
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Location: Doubletree by Hilton Hotel, 8727 Colesville Rd., Silver
Spring, MD 20910. Answers to commonly asked questions, including
information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation, may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    Contact Person: Walter Ellenberg, Office of the Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5154,
Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-

741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the Pediatric Advisory
Committee will meet to discuss the general topic of how procedural
sedation for nontherapeutic (research) interventions or procedures in
the pediatric population should be considered under the Additional
Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations at 21 CFR 50 subpart
D. A brief summary of the subcommittee's discussion will then be
presented to the FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee on Tuesday, March 24,
2015.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 9, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. on March 23, 2015. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before February 26, 2015.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by March 2, 2015.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Walter Ellenberg at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 20, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03900 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 61564]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket DOT-OST-2009-0292]

Michael R. Bennett and Workplace Compliance; Removal from the
Public Interest Exclusion List

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a decision and
order under the Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and
Alcohol Testing Programs excluding a service agent, Michael R. Bennett,
Workplace Compliance, Inc. in North Carolina, Texas, and all other
places it is incorporated, franchised, or otherwise doing business, and
all other individuals who are officers, employees, directors,
shareholders, partners, or other individuals associated with Workplace
Compliance, Inc., from providing drug and alcohol testing services in
any capacity to any DOT-regulated employer for a period of 5 years. Mr.
Bennett and his company provided Medical Review Officer services to
DOT-regulated employers directly and through other service agents when
Mr. Bennett was not qualified to act as a Medical Review Officer. The
5-year period has ended and Mr. Bennett, et al., has been removed from
the list of excluded service agents.

DATES: This notice is effective as of July 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrice M. Kelly, Acting Director,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy
and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202)
366-3784 (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department published notice of the
Public Interest Exclusion for Michael R. Bennett, et al., on November
17, 2009 (74 FR 59340). The exclusion was effective until July 31,
2014. Shortly after that date, we removed Mr. Bennett from the DOT's
list of Public Interest Exclusions on our Web site at: http://www.transportation.gov/odapc/pie. We are also notifying the public of
the removal by publishing this Federal Register notice as required by
49 CFR 40.401(d).

    Issued on October 6, 2015, in Washington DC.
Patrice M. Kelly,
Acting Director, Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-25943 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16103-16104]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2021-0485; FRL-9634-01-OLEM]

National Priorities List Deletion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of one site, Beckman Instruments, from the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, created under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the state,
through their designated state agency, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: The document is effective on March 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under
the Docket Identification included in Table 1 in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the corresponding Regional Records Centers. Locations,
addresses, and phone numbers-of the Regional Records Center follows.
    Regional Records Center:

 Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), email:
[email protected], 415/947-8717.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending Regional Records Centers for
public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Information in these repositories, including the deletion docket, may
not be updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Holly Hadlock, U.S. EPA Region 9, [email protected], 415/
972-3171.
 Chuck Sands, U.S. EPA Headquarters, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NPL, created under section 105 of
CERCLA, as amended, is an appendix of the NCP. The NCP establishes the
criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with
40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further
response is appropriate. Partial deletion of sites is in accordance
with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and are consistent with the ``Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities
List,'' 60 FR 55466, (November 1, 1995). The site to be deleted is
listed in Table 1, including docket information containing reference
documents with the rationale and data principally relied upon by the
EPA to determine that the Superfund response is complete. The NCP
permits activities to occur at a deleted site, or

that media or parcel of a partially deleted site, including operation
and maintenance of the remedy, monitoring, and five-year reviews. These
activities for the site are entered in Table 1 in this SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, if applicable, under Footnote such that; 1 = site
has continued operation and maintenance of the remedy, 2 = site
receives continued monitoring, and 3 = site five-year reviews are
conducted. As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site or
portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-
financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions.

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site name                 City/county, state             Type                            Docket No.                         Footnote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Instruments................  Porterville, CA.......  Full..................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2021-0485                       ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information concerning the sites to be deleted and partially
deleted from the NPL, the proposed rule for the deletion and partial
deletion of the sites, and information on receipt of public comment(s)
and preparation of a Responsiveness Summary (if applicable) are
included in Table 2 as follows:

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Full site deletion (full) or
             Site name                   Date,            FR citation          Public  comment        Responsiveness      media/parcels/ description for
                                    proposed  rule                                                        summary               partial  deletion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Instruments...............       9/14/2021  86 FR 51045...........  Yes..................  No..................  Full.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the site proposed for deletion, the closing date for comments
in the proposed rule was October 14, 2021. The EPA received three
public comments on the Beckman Instruments site included for deletion
in this final rule. The public comments were supportive of the proposed
deletion and of EPA actions. Because no adverse comment was received
for this site, no Responsiveness Summary was prepared. EPA placed the
comments in the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2021-0485, on https://www.regulations.gov, and in the Regional repository listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Dated: March 9, 2022.
Dana Stalcup,
Acting Office Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 300
as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Amend appendix B to part 300, Table 1, by removing the entry for
``CA'', ``Beckman Instruments'', ``Porterville''.

[FR Doc. 2022-05556 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 D 37 Appendix D 4. Measured Hardness and Major Ion and Cation Concentrations in WFTS Well Water from April 1972 to April 1978. Concentrations Given as Mg/ L ( data from Samuelson 1976 and Chapman, personal communication)

Month Total Hardness Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Mar 72 Apr 72 7.9 2 5 1.1 < 10.0 8 May 72 22 5.8 1.4 4.4 0.5 < 5.0 7 Jun 72 24 5.8 1.6 4.4 0.5 3 7 Jul 72 23 6.7 1.6 4.6 0.5 < 1.0 8.3 Aug 72 23 6.5 1.7 4.7 0.5 < 10.0 6.3 Sep 72 22 6 1.6 4.5 0.6 < 10.0 4 Oct 72 22 6.7 1.9 4.7 0.6 5 5.5 Nov 72 23 6.2 1.6 4.2 0.6 3.7 5.3 Dec 72 23 6.2 1.5 4.2 0.5 3 4 Jan 73 52 15.3 3.5 7.1 0.7 7.8 12.4 Feb 73 33 7.7 2.1 5 0.5 5 5 Mar 73 30 8 2.1 5.3 0.7 5 6 Apr 73 31 8.9 2.3 5.4 0.7 5.3 8.8 May 73 28 8.3 2.4 5.8 0.7 3 8 Jun 73 28 8.4 2.2 5.8 0.7 4.8 7.5 Jul 73 26 7.4 1.9 5.8 0.8 < 5.0 6.8 Aug 73 25 6.5 1.7 5.7 0.7 3.1 5.8 Sep 73 25 6.7 1.7 5.4 0.7 3.1 5.3 Oct 73 27 7 1.8 5.4 0.7 2.9 5.4 Nov 73 28 7.9 2.1 4.8 0.7 10 6.8 Dec 73 62 20.3 4.2 9 0.8 13 14 Jan 74 67 21.3 4.8 7 0.8 17.3 11.3 Feb 74 58 14.3 3.4 6.9 0.9 14.7 6.7 Mar 74 53 20.8 3.8 7.2 0.7 13 7 Apr 74 51 18.2 3.7 6.8 0.6 15.5 8.5 May 74 23 7.5 2.1 4.6 0.6 5 4.8 Jun 74 22 6 1.9 4.8 0.5 3 4.5 Jul 74 23 5.4 1.7 5 0.6 3.3 6.3 Aug 74 23 4.8 1.6 5 0.7 3 6 Sep 74 23 5.8 1.5 5.1 0.7 2.9 4.8 Oct 74 23 11 2 7.1 0.8 3.1 5 Nov 74 23 12 2.6 4.5 0.5 3.8 5.3 Dec 74 24 6.4 2.5 5.2 0.7 3.8 5 Jan 75 41 7.7 2.9 6.7 0.6 8 8 Feb 75 61 11.6 4.2 8.6 0.8 16 11.8 Mar 75 54 9.1 3.1 6.4 0.6 8 8 Apr 75 4.4 1.6 4.4 0.5 3 5 May 75 7.2 2 5 0.5 6 7 Jun 75 4.4 1.6 4.6 0.6 5 6 Jul 75 5.2 1.6 7 0.7 5 7 Aug 75 5.2 1.4 7 0.6 5 5 Sep 75 4.5 1.5 4.5 0.7 5 4 Oct 75 7.1 1.9 4.3 0.5 20 5 Nov 75 18 5.3 1.5 4.2 0.5 5 4 Dec 75 Jan 76 Feb 76 9.8 5 5.4 0.4 9 9 Mar 76 4.1 0.1 3 6 Month Total Hardness Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl D 38 Apr 76 5.3 0.1 6 9 May 76 7.9 1.8 4.5 0.5 3 6 Jun 76 27 8.1 1.9 3.3 0.6 4 7 Jul 76 26 Aug 76 23 4.9 1.3 4.8 0.1 3 6 Sep 76 23 6.7 2.6 4.7 0.1 Oct 76 21 6.7 2.6 4.7 0.1 Nov 76 22 7.7 3 4.7 0.1 3 Dec 76 25.5 6.4 1.8 5 0.1 4 7 Jan 77 27.2 7.7 2.6 5.6 0.6 4 8 Feb 77 10.7 4.9 5.9 0.6 3 11 Mar 77 3 8 Apr 77 10.7 2.2 5.5 0.8 3 7 May 77 25 5 1.8 5 0.8 3 5 Jun 77 27 6.6 2 5.2 0.7 3 5 Jul 77 24 6.7 2 7.1 0.8 3 7 Aug 77 25 6.9 1.9 6.9 1 8 Sep 77 27 9.9 2.1 5.9 0.9 3 6 Oct 77 3 Nov 77 6.6 2.1 5.6 0.9 10 4.6 Dec 77 27 9.7 4.95 0.65 9 4.6 Jan 78 10.9 3.75 0.85 6 12 Feb 78 10.6 3.8 8.6 0.7 5 11 Mar 78 10.2 2.6 4.7 0.6 6 9 Apr 78 8.3 2.4 0.7 5 9.55


MEMORANDUM

FROM:  Keith Barnett, EPA, Environmental Engineer

TO:  Portland Cement NESHAP Docket

DATE:  July 26, 2011

RE:  Addition of document to administrative record

The notice denying reconsideration of the various petitions to reconsider the cement kiln NESHAP referred to comments submitted by the Portland Cement Association to a different EPA rulemaking involving standards for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators.  See 76 FR at 28322/3.  However, EPA inadvertently did not also place these comments in the reconsideration docket, and is now doing so.  Because the reconsideration notice refers to these comments, there is no prejudice to any party in this late addition to the record.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79382-79385]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31926]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76655; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 13
Equities To Eliminate Good Til Cancelled Orders and Stop Orders, and
Make Conforming Changes to Equities Rules 49, 61, 70, 104, 115A, 116,
118, 123, 123A, 123C, 123D, 501, 1000, 1004, and 6140

December 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on December 7, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13--Equities to eliminate Good
til Cancelled (``GTC'') Orders and Stop Orders, and (2) make conforming
changes to Rules 49--Equities, 61--Equities, 70--Equities, 104--
Equities, 115A--Equities, 116--Equities, 118--Equities, 123--Equities,
123A--Equities, 123C--Equities, 123D--Equities, 501--Equities, 1000--
Equities, 1004--Equities, and 6140--Equities. The proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 13--Equities (``Rule 13'') to
eliminate GTC Orders (which are also defined as ``Open'' Orders) and
Stop Orders, and make conforming changes to Rules 49--Equities, 61--
Equities, 70--Equities, 104--Equities, 115A--Equities, 116--Equities,
118--Equities, 123--Equities, 123A--Equities, 123C--Equities, 123D--
Equities, 501--Equities, 1000--Equities, 1004--Equities, and 6140--
Equities. The Exchange proposes to eliminate these order types in order
to streamline its rules and reduce complexity among its order type
offerings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at the Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014) (available at
www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370542004312#.U5HI-fmwJiw).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with the proposed rule
change, the Exchange proposes to announce the implementation date of
the elimination of the order types via Trader Update.
Elimination of GTC Orders and Stop Orders (Rule 13)
    The Exchange proposes to eliminate, and thus delete from its rules,
the GTC Order defined in Rule 13(b)(2). A GTC Order is a limit order
that remains in effect until it is either executed or cancelled.\5\ To
reflect this elimination, the Exchange proposes to delete all
references to GTC or Open Orders and any related modifiers in Rule 13
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ GTC orders are not eligible to be executed in any Off-Hours
Trading Facility and may not be transmitted to Floor broker hand-
held devices or Floor broker systems. See Rule 13(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Delete Rule 13(b)(2), which defines the GTC Order;
     delete Rule 13(d)(1)(B)(iv), which provides that interest
designated as GTC may not be designated as a Mid-Point Passive
Liquidity (``MPL'') Order; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A MPL Order is an undisplayed limit order that automatically
executes at the mid-point of the protected best bid or offer. See
Rule 13(d)(1)(A). The Exchange also proposes to re-number Rule
13(d)(1)(B)(v) to reflect the deletion of subsection (iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     delete Rules 13(f)(1) and (2), which describes the Do Not
Reduce (``DNR'') and Do Not Increase (``DNI'') modifiers,

which are modifiers that are used only in connection with GTC Orders.
In addition to being used for GTC Orders, these modifiers are also used
for Stop Orders, which the Exchange is also proposing to eliminate; \7\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In connection with the deletion of Rule 13(f)(1) & (2), the
Exchange proposes to renumber the Rule as follows: Rule 13(f)(3)
(Pegging Interest) would become Rule 13(f)(1); Rule 13(f)(4) (Retail
Modifier) would become Rule 13(f)(2); Rule 13(f)(5) (Self-Trade
Prevention Modifier) would become Rule 13(f)(3); and Rule 13(f)(6)
(Sell ``Plus''--Buy ``Minus'' Instruction) would become Rule
13(f)(4). As discussed below, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule
13(f)(7) which defines Stop Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     amend Rule 13(f)(5)(B), which provides that the Exchange
shall reject GTC Orders with an Self-Trade Prevention (``STP'')
modifier.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Stop Orders. A Stop
Order is an order to buy or sell a stock at the market once the price
of the stock reaches a specified price known as the ``stop price.''
Specifically, a Stop Order to buy becomes a market order when a
transaction in the security occurs at or above the stop price after the
order is received into Exchange systems or is manually represented by a
Floor broker. A Stop Order to sell becomes a market order when a
transaction in the security occurs at or below the stop price after the
order is received into Exchange systems or manually represented by a
Floor broker.\8\ To effectuate this elimination, the Exchange proposes
to amend Rule 13 as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Rule 13(f)(7)(A) & (B). Elected Stop Orders also become
Market Orders and are eligible for automatic execution in accordance
with Rules 116.40--Equities, 123C--Equities and 1000--1004--
Equities. Stop Orders that would be elected by the price of the
opening transaction on the Exchange are included in the opening
transaction as Market Orders. See id. at (C). Odd-lot size
transactions are not considered transactions eligible to elect Stop
Orders on the Exchange. See id. at (D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Delete Rule 13(f)(7), which defines a Stop Order;
     delete Rule 13(f)(1) and (2), which describes the DNR and
DNI modifiers as noted above; and
     amend Rule 13(f)(5), which provides that the STP modifier
is available for Stop Orders.
Conforming Amendments
    The Exchange proposes certain conforming amendments to Rules 49--
Equities, 61--Equities, 70--Equities, 104--Equities, 115A--Equities,
116--Equities, 118--Equities, 123--Equities, 123A--Equities, 123C--
Equities, 123D--Equities, 501--Equities, 1000--Equities, 1004--
Equities, and 6140--Equities to reflect the elimination of GTC Orders
and Stop Orders as described above as follows:
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 49--Equities
(Emergency Powers), which addresses the Exchange's emergency powers, to
delete subsection (b)(1)(B), which permits the Exchange to accept
cancellations of GTC orders during an emergency condition.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 61--Equities
(Recognized Quotations), which governs bids and offers in securities.
Under Rule 61(a)(ii)--Equities, transactions in part of a round lot are
published to the Consolidated Tape and may elect Stop Orders. The
Exchange proposes to eliminate the reference to electing Stop Orders.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 70--Equities
(Execution of Floor Broker Interest), governing execution of Floor
broker interest known as e-Quotes. Under Rule 70(a)(1)--Equities, e-
Quotes cannot include, among others, unelected Stop Orders or a GTC,
DNR and DNI modifier. The Exchange proposes to delete these references.
     The Exchange proposes to amend 104--Equities (Dealings and
Responsibilities of DMMs), which prohibits DMM units from entering,
among others, GTC Modifiers, DNR Modifiers, DNI Modifiers, and Stop
Orders. The Exchange proposes to delete these references to GTC, DNR
and DNI modifiers and Stop Orders in subsection (b)(vi).
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 115A--Equities (Orders
at Opening), which governs orders at the opening, to remove subsection
(a), which prohibits DMMs, trading assistants and anyone acting on
their behalf from using the Exchange Display Book system in a manner
designed to discover inappropriately information about unelected stop
orders when arranging the open or to otherwise attempt to obtain
information regarding unelected stop orders and to renumber the rule
accordingly.
     The Exchange proposes to delete Supplementary Material
.40(A) and .50 of Rule 116--Equities (`Stop' Constitutes Guarantee),
which provides that an agreement by a member to ``stop'' stock at a
specified price constitutes a guarantee of a purchase or sale by the
member of the security at that price. Supplementary Material .40(A)
provides that Stop Orders elected based on the closing price are
automatically and systemically converted to market orders and included
in the total number of market-at-the-close orders executed at the
close. Supplementary Material .50, similar to Rule 104(b)(vi)--
Equities, prohibits DMMs, trading assistants and anyone acting on their
behalf from using the Display Book system in a manner designed to
discover inappropriately information about unelected stop orders when
arranging the close or to otherwise attempt to obtain information
regarding unelected stop orders.
     The Exchange proposes to delete Rule 118--Equities (Orders
To Be Reduced and Increased on Ex-Date), which governs the adjustment
of GTC buy orders \9\ and open Stop Orders, i.e., GTC Stop Orders, to
sell when a security is quoted ex-dividend, ex-distribution, ex-rights
or ex-interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Rule 118--Equities uses the term ``Open buying orders''. An
Open Order is another term for a GTC Order. See Rule 13(a)(2). Since
Rule 118--Equities applies only to GTC Orders and Stop Orders, the
Exchange proposes to delete the rule in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123--Equities (Record
of Orders), which imposes certain recordkeeping and order entry
requirements, to eliminate the reference to Stop Orders in subsection
(e)(iii)(7) and stop price in paragraph (e)(iii)(8) of Rule 123--
Equities. The Exchange also proposes to delete outdated references to
auction market and auction limit orders in Rule 123(e)(iii)(7)--
Equities, which the Exchange either eliminated or did not
implement.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67686 (August 17,
2012), 77 FR 51596 (August 24, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-13) (deleting
the auction market order). Auction limit orders do not appear to
have been implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .20
of Rule 123A--Equities (Miscellaneous Requirements), which governs
changes in day orders, to remove the final clause of the first
paragraph requiring members to request that customers and
correspondents file GTC Orders wherever possible rather than repeating
the same order each morning. The Exchange also proposes to delete the
second paragraph of Supplementary Material .20 in its entirety, which
provides that a Day Order changed to an Open Order is considered a new
order and must be added to the Exchange's Book after other orders
previously received at the same price. As noted above, an Open Order is
another term for a GTC Order.\11\ Finally, the Exchange proposes to
rename Supplementary Material .20 ``Day Orders'' by deleting the
preceding words ``Changes In''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123C--Equities (The
Closing Procedures), which specifies the procedures to be followed at
the close of trading on the Exchange, to delete references to Stop
Orders in paragraphs 6(a)(i)(C) and 6(a)(ii) of Rule 123C--Equities.
The Exchange also proposes to delete paragraph 8(a)(iv) of Rule 123C--
Equities, which describes election of Stop Orders as part of the
Closing Print.

     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 123D--Equities
(Openings and Halts in Trading), which specifies that Exchange systems
may open one or more securities electronically if a DMM cannot
facilitate the opening of trading as required by Exchange rules. First,
the Exchange proposes to replace the references to Rule 115A(b)--
Equities with references to Rule 115A(a)--Equities. Second, the
Exchange proposes to delete subsection (a)(3)(C)(ii), which provides
that Stop Orders elected based on the opening price would trade second
in time priority when interest that is otherwise guaranteed to
participate in an opening trade would cause an opening price to be
outside the Opening Price Range (as defined therein). Third, to reflect
the deletion of subsection (a)(3)(C)(ii) and the removal of Stop Orders
from second in time priority, the Exchange proposes to re-number
subsections (a)(3)(C)(iii) through (v) and re-order priority for Limit
Orders (current subsection (a)(3)(C)(iii)) from third to second, for G-
quotes (current subsection (a)(3)(C)(iv)) from fourth to third, and for
all other limit interest priced equal to the open (current subsection
(a)(3)(v)) from fifth to fourth.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 501--Equities
(Definitions), which sets forth the definitions for the Rules 500-525--
Equities Series governing the trading of ``UTP Securities'' on the
Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Exchange proposes
to delete subsection (d)(1)(A) of Rule 501--Equities, which defines a
GTC or Open Order for a UTP Security. The Exchange also proposes to
delete subsection (d)(2)(E) of Rule 501--Equities, which lists Stop
Order as one of the order types not accepted for trading in UTP
Securities.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1000--Equities
(Automatic Executions), which provides for automatic executions by
Exchange systems. Rule 1000(c)--Equities provides that incoming market
orders, including an elected stop order, or marketable limit order to
buy (sell) will not execute or route to another market center at a
price above (below) the Trading Collar applicable when automatic
executions are in effect and calculated pursuant to Rule 1000(c)(i)--
Equities. The Exchange proposes to delete the reference to elected stop
order in paragraph (c) of Rule 1000--Equities.
     The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1004--Equities
(Election of Buy Minus, Sell Plus and Stop Orders), which provides that
automatic executions of transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape
shall elect, among others, stop orders electable at the price of such
executions and that any stop order so elected shall be automatically
executed as market orders pursuant to Exchange rules. The Exchange
proposes to delete the references to Stop Orders, including in the
heading.
     Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6140--
Equities (Other Trading Practices), which governs a number of
prohibited trading practices. First, the Exchange proposes to delete
Rule 6140(h)(1)--Equities, which provides that a member or member
organization may, but is not obligated to, accept a stop order in
designated securities, and defines buy stop orders (Rule
6140(h)(1)(A)--Equities) and sell stop orders (Rule 6140(h)(1)(B)--
Equities). Second, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 6140(h)(2)--
Equities, which provides that a member or member organization may, but
is not obligated to, accept stop limit orders in designated securities
and that when a transaction occurs at a stop price, the stop limit
order to buy or sell becomes a limit order at the limit price. Current
subsection (i) of Rule 6140--Equities would become new subsection (h).
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) \12\ of
the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\13\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that eliminating GTC Orders and
Stop Orders removes impediments to and perfects a national market
system by simplifying functionality and complexity of its order types.
The Exchange believes that eliminating these order types would not be
inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors
because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from the
removal of complex functionality. Because Stop Orders, when elected,
can exacerbate market volatility and result in executions in declining
markets at prices significantly different than the quoted price, the
Exchange believes that eliminating them would reduce the potential for
orders on the Exchange to cause significant price dislocation. The
Exchange also believes that eliminating GTC Orders would benefit
investors because it shifts the responsibility to monitor best
execution obligations on behalf of a customer to the member
organization entering the order, rather than leaving a GTC order at the
Exchange until it gets executed.
    The Exchange further believes that deleting corresponding
references in Exchange rules to deleted order types also removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by
ensuring that members, regulators and the public can more easily
navigate the Exchange's rulebook and better understand the orders types
available for trading on the Exchange. Removing obsolete cross
references also furthers the goal of transparency and adds clarity to
the Exchange's rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but would rather remove
complex functionality and obsolete cross-references, thereby reducing
confusion and making the Exchange's rules easier to understand and
navigate.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the

Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-103 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-103. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NYSEMKT-2015-
103, and should be submitted on or before January 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31926 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52003-52005]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20841]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0278; FRL-10000-49-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; KY; Existing Indirect Heat Exchangers for
Jefferson County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
approving changes to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
through the Energy and Environment Cabinet (Cabinet), through a letter
dated March 15, 2018. The changes were submitted by the Cabinet on
behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District
(District, also referred to herein as Jefferson County). The SIP
revision includes changes to Jefferson County Regulations regarding
existing indirect heat exchangers.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 31, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0278. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at
(404) 562-9089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA is approving changes to the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP that were provided to EPA through Kentucky's Division of
Air Quality via a letter dated March 15, 2018.1 2 EPA is
approving the portions of this SIP revision that make changes to the
District's Regulation 6.07, Standards of Performance for Existing
Indirect Heat Exchangers.\3\ The March 15, 2018, SIP revision makes
minor and ministerial changes to Regulation 6.07 that do not alter the
meaning of the regulation or the emissions levels for sources regulated
under the Jefferson County Regulations, such as clarifying changes to
its applicability. In addition, other changes in the submittal
strengthen the SIP by adding specific test methods and procedures for
determining compliance with applicable emissions limits for affected
facilities. Accordingly, these rule changes do not relax the emissions
reductions to applicable sources, nor do they change any applicable
emissions limitations. The SIP revision updates the current SIP-
approved version of Regulation 6.07 (version 3) to version 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the SIP revision on March 23, 2018.
    \2\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' See The History of Air Pollution Control in Louisville,
available at https://louisvilleky.gov/government/air-pollution-control-district/history-air-pollution-control-louisville. However,
each of the regulations in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with the
terminology used in the SIP, we refer throughout this notice to
regulations contained in the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
    \3\ EPA received several submittals revising the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky SIP transmitted with the same March
15, 2018, cover letter. EPA will consider action on these other SIP
revisions in separate rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See EPA's July 22, 2019 (84 FR 35052), notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for further detail on these changes and EPA's
rationale for approving them. EPA received adverse comments on the
NPRM. EPA received one additional comment, available in the docket for
this action, which is not relevant to this rulemaking. EPA has
summarized and responded to the adverse comments in Section II of this
action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: One commenter states that EPA should disapprove Regulation
6.07 because ``it is inconsistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and it violates the Kentucky Clean Air Act.''
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The Agency is taking
action pursuant to the Federal CAA, and actions under the CAA are
exempt from NEPA. See 15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1). To the extent the commenter
intended to reference Kentucky's Air Pollution Control District Act
(codified at Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS), Chapter 77, Air Pollution
Control) in its comment regarding the ``Kentucky Clean Air Act,'' EPA
notes that the District approved the revisions under KRS Chapter 77,
stating in the SIP submittal that KRS 77.180 provides for the control
of emissions from indirect heat exchangers.\4\ Further, EPA notes that
the commenter does not provide any rationale or information supporting
its assertions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The SIP revision also states that KRS 77.180 authorizes the
District to adopt and enforce all orders, rules, and regulations
necessary or proper to accomplish the purposes of KRS Chapter 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter states that the rule poses significant risks
to public health and the environment and that it will negatively impact
Kentucky's electricity market and increase energy prices in Kentucky.
Similarly, another commenter suggests that EPA should ``revisit'' the
rule because it does not properly address the community's needs and
that the ``system in place to assist our community in reducing energy
costs is not the `best' fit today and is not fit in the future for our
community.''
    Response: EPA disagrees that the SIP revision poses a significant
risk to public health and the environment. The changes to Regulation
6.07 do not alter any applicable emissions limitations and are
therefore not expected to increase emissions. Rather, the revisions
clarify and strengthen the SIP by providing specific testing
requirements for certain sources. In addition, sources regulated
pursuant to Regulation 6.07 are not otherwise required by Federal
regulations to achieve emissions reductions; therefore, Regulation 6.07
benefits Jefferson County by requiring specific emissions reductions
for particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
these sources.

    With respect to the assertion that the action will impact the
energy market and costs in Kentucky, EPA's role in reviewing SIP
submittals is to approve state choices provided that they meet the
minimum requirements of the CAA. See CAA section 110(k)(3). The
economic reasonableness of the District's choice to modify Regulation
6.07 is not a factor that EPA can consider when acting on this SIP
revision. See CAA section 110(a)(2); Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (1976). EPA notes, however, that the District anticipates
no increased costs as a result of these rule revisions, as stated in
the SIP submittal. Further, EPA notes that the commenter does not
provide any rationale or information supporting its assertions
regarding energy costs and risks to public health and the environment.
    Comment: One commenter states that EPA should disapprove the
changes to Regulation 6.07 because they are ``inconsistent with EPA's
national air quality management plan and are inconsistent with the
Agency's statutory authority to define `greenhouse gas emissions'
(which is what the proposed amendments are addressing).''
    Response: It is unclear how this comment relates to the proposal.
The commenter does not provide any specific information regarding the
``national air quality management plan'' or EPA's statutory authority
to define greenhouse gas emissions, nor does the commenter explain how
this plan and authority are allegedly inconsistent with EPA's action to
incorporate the changes to Regulation 6.07 into the SIP. Further, EPA
notes that Regulation 6.07 regulates the emissions of criteria air
pollutants, namely PM and SO2, not greenhouse gases.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Jefferson
County's Regulation 6.07, Standards of Performance for Existing
Indirect Heat Exchangers, version 4, State effective January 17, 2018,
which makes minor and ministerial changes to Regulation 6.07 that do
not alter the meaning of the regulation or the emissions levels for
sources and strengthens the SIP by adding specific test methods and
procedures for determining compliance with applicable emissions limits
for affected facilities. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving changes to the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP included in a March 15, 2018, submittal. Specifically, EPA
is approving the District's Regulation 6.07 version 4 into the SIP. The
March 15, 2018, SIP revision makes minor and ministerial changes such
as clarifying the applicability of the regulation, and includes more
specific requirements for test methods and procedures for affected
facilities. These changes are consistent with the CAA and EPA policy,
and these rule adoptions will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or
with any other applicable requirement of the Act.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See
section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 17, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(c), table 2 is amended under ``Reg 6-Standards of
Performance for Existing Affected Facilities'' by revising the entry
for ``6.07'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                         Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                EPA                               District
        Reg              Title/subject        approval      Federal Register     effective       Explanation
                                                date             notice             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Reg 6--Standards of Performance for Existing Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
6.07...............  Standards of             10/1/2019  [Insert Federal          1/17/2018
                      Performance for                     Register citation].
                      Existing Indirect
                      Heat Exchangers.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-20841 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 10375]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0848]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications; extension of application.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard extends the deadline for accepting
applications for membership on the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee. The Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security on matters and actions concerning activities directly
involved with or in support of the exploration of offshore mineral and
energy resources insofar as they relate to matters within Coast Guard
jurisdiction. Applicants selected for service on the National Offshore
Safety Advisory Committee via this solicitation will not begin their
respective terms until January 31, 2018.

DATES: Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before
April 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in
an appointment to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee that
also identifies under which membership category the applicant is
applying, along with a resume detailing the applicant's experience via
one of the following methods:
     By Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     By Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     By Mail: Mr. Patrick W. Clark, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee,
Commandant, (CG-OES-2)/NOSAC U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King
Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee, Commandant, (CG-OES-2)/NOSAC U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 4, 2106, the Coast Guard
published a request in the Federal Register Volume 81, Number 214, for
applications for membership in the National Offshore Safety Advisory
Committee. The deadline for applications in the notice is being
extended until April 11, 2017. Applicants who responded to the initial
notice do not need to reapply.
    The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee is a federal
advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5 U.S.C. Appendix) to advise the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters and actions
concerning activities directly involved with or in support of the
exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources insofar as they
relate to matters within Coast Guard jurisdiction.
    The Committee normally meets twice a year: once in April in New
Orleans, Louisiana, and then in November in Houston, Texas. Each
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee member serves a term of
office up to three (3) years. Members may serve a maximum of two (2)
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary or reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation
from the Federal Government.
    We will consider applications for the 5 positions listed below that
will be vacant on January 31, 2018:
    (a) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities engaged in offshore drilling;
    (b) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities engaged in the production of petroleum;
    (c) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities engaged in the construction of offshore facilities;
    (d) One member representing companies, organizations, enterprises
or similar entities engaged in the support, by offshore supply vessel
or other vessels, of offshore operations; and,
    (e) One member representing employees of companies, organizations,
enterprises or similar entities engaged in offshore operations, who
should have recent practical experience on vessels or units involved in
the offshore industry.
    To be eligible, applicants for positions (a-e) should be employed
by companies, organizations, enterprises or similar entities associated
with the exploration for, and the recovery of oil, gas and other
mineral resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf; and have
expertise, knowledge and experience regarding the technology, equipment
and techniques that are used or are being developed for use in the
exploration for, and the recovery of, offshore mineral resources.
    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in
selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender
identity, marital status, disabilities and genetic information, age
membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor.
The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse
candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Patrick Clark,
Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety
Advisory Committee, via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES
section by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice. All email
submittals will receive email receipt confirmation.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2017-02774 Filed 2-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P