[Federal Register: June 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 35439-35440]
[DOCID:fr23jn08-102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2008-0161]

Pipeline Safety: Workshop on Cased Pipeline Integrity Assessments

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of workshop.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is holding a Workshop on Cased Pipeline Integrity
Assessments and in coordination with a planning group representing the
National Association of Pipeline Safety Regulators, American Gas
Association, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, American
Public Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, and NACE
International, the workshop focus will be for pipeline operators, trade
associations, and others to address concerns with successfully using
External Corrosion Direct Assessment integrity evaluation methods and
use of other technologies to assess casings in High Consequence Areas.

DATES: The workshop will be held July 15-16, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Sheraton Gateway Suites
Chicago O'Hare, 6501 North Manheim Road, Rosemont, IL 60018. Hotel
reservations under the U.S. Department of Transportation room block can
be made at<PHONE_NUMBER> by June 30. A daily rate of $168.00 is
available. The meeting room(s) will be posted at the hotel on the days
of the workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Kieba at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Registration: Members of the public may attend this free workshop.
To help with estimating attendance and planning for the breakout
session, all attendees are encouraged to register for the workshop at
http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/Mtg54.mtg. Hotel reservations must
be made by contacting the hotel directly.
    Comments should reference Docket ID PHMSA-08-0161. Comments may be
submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140,
on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the Docket ID at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov. Note: Comments will be posted
without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading in
the Regulatory Analyses and Notices section of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for additional information.
    Privacy Act Statement: Anyone may search the electronic form of all
comments received for any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477).
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Max Kieba by July 1, 2008.
    Web Casting: The workshop will be Web cast except for the breakout
sessions on the second day. Information on the Web cast link, including
estimates of times when the Web cast will be on, will be posted on the
meeting Web site above. Presentations from the workshop and
recommendations from the breakout sessions will be uploaded to the
meeting Web site within 30 days after the workshop.
    Additional Information on Cased Crossings: The meeting Web site
will have a list of technical documents participants are encouraged to
review prior to the workshop, along with a list of questions and issues
we will address during the workshop.

Workshop Agenda

    The first day of the workshop will include:
    (1) A background of the regulatory integrity requirements,
    (2) Technical updates by both operators and service providers,
    (3) Overview of research of new technology, inspection issues and
the current integrity inspection positions,
    (4) Status of the stakeholders represented followed by panels
presenting and discussing current NACE standards,
    (5) Approaches and assessment methodologies being used for cased
pipeline segments, and

    (6) Research completed or underway.
    The second day of the workshop will include:
    (1) Breakout sessions on the above topics, followed by the group
convening to talk about technical assessment successes,
    (2) New technology,
    (3) New integrity assessment approaches,
    (4) Status update of assessments, and
    (5) Long term issues.
    The second day will also serve as a brainstorm session for
identifying discussion topics/issues that should be incorporated into a
future public workshop on the broader issue of how pipeline industry
can work collaboratively with others to reduce the need for casings on
newly installed pipe.
    The goal at the end of the workshop will be to develop a list of
potential solutions that can address the issues through usage of new
technology, understanding of and/or changes to the regulations,
updating of standards, operating practices and/or research. PHMSA will
then analyze the list of potential solutions with stakeholders for
consideration on which solutions can best address the issues.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2008.
William H. Gute,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
 [FR Doc. E8-14119 Filed 6-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72581-72585]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25667]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96356; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2022-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

November 18, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 10, 2022, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') as follows: (1) to amend
the standard rebate for orders yielding fee codes DM,\3\ HA,\4\ MM,\5\
or RP; \6\ (2) to introduce a new Growth Tier, a new Non-Displayed
Step-Up Volume Tier, and a new Retail Growth Tier; (3) to modify the
rebate under the Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2, and (4) to add
clarifying language to the

description of fee code X.\7\ The Exchange proposes to implement these
changes effective November 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Fee code DM is appended on orders adding liquidity using the
midpoint discretionary order within discretionary range.
    \4\ Fee code HA is appended to non-displayed orders adding
liquidity.
    \5\ Fee code MM is appended to non-displayed orders adding
liquidity using the mid-point peg.
    \6\ Fee code RP is appended to non-displayed orders adding
liquidity using the supplemental peg.
    \7\ Fee code X is appended to routed orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''), to which market
participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available
information,\8\ no single registered equities exchange has more than
15% of the market share. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. The Exchange in
particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model whereby it pays rebates to
members that add liquidity and assesses fees to those that remove
liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates
and rates applied per share for orders that provide and remove
liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in securities priced at
or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.00160 per
share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per
share for orders that remove liquidity. For orders in securities priced
below $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.00009 per
share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of 0.30% of the
total dollar value for orders that remove liquidity. Additionally, in
response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers
tiered pricing which provides Members opportunities to qualify for
higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and
thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive
for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides
increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly
more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (October 24, 2022), available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to reduce the rebate applied to
certain non-displayed orders. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
reduce the rebate of $0.0010 per share to $0.0008 per share for orders
yielding fee code DM, HA, MM, or RP.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to add two new tiers to the Add/
Remove Volume Tiers provided under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule and
one new tier to the Retail Volume Tiers provided under footnote 2 of
the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proses to adopt the Growth
Tier 5 and Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3 under the footnote 1,
and the Retail Growth Tier 2 under footnote 2. The Growth Tiers, Non-
Displayed Step-Up Volume Tiers, and Retail Growth Tiers each provide an
enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders where a Member reaches
certain add volume-based criteria, including ``growing'' its volume
over a certain baseline month. The Growth Tiers are applicable to
liquidity adding orders yielding fee B,\9\ V,\10\ Y,\11\ 3,\12\ and
4,\13\ the Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tiers are applicable to non-
displayed orders yielding DM, HA, MM and RP, and the Retail Growth
Tiers are applicable to retail orders yielding fee codes ZA \14\ and
ZO.\15\ The proposed criteria for each of the proposed tiers is as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Fee code B is appended to orders adding liquidity to EDGX in
Tape B securities.
    \10\ Fee code V is appended to orders adding liquidity to EDGX
in Tape A securities.
    \11\ Fee code Y is appended to orders adding liquidity to EDGX
in Tape C securities.
    \12\ Fee code 3 is appended to orders adding liquidity to EDGX
in the pre and post market in Tapes A or C securities.
    \13\ Fee code 4 is appended to orders adding liquidity to EDGX
in the pre and post market in Tape B securities.
    \14\ Fee code ZA is appended liquidity adding retail orders.
    \15\ Fee code ZO is appended to liquidity adding retail orders
in the pre and post market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Member adds a Step-Up ADAV \16\ from October 2022 >=0.15% of
the TCV \17\ or Member adds a Step-Up ADAV from October 2022
>=15,000,000; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ADAV means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day ADAV is calculated on a monthly
basis. Step-Up ADAV means ADAV in the relevant baseline month
subtracted from current ADAV.
    \17\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Member has a total remove ADV >=0.45% of TCV or Member has a
total remove ADV >=45,000,000.
    While the proposed criteria is the same for each of the proposed
new tiers, the Exchange proposes the following rebates: $0.0034 per
share to Members meeting Growth Tier 5, $0.0026 per share to Members
meeting Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3, and $0.0037 per share to
Members meeting Retail Growth Tier 2. While the criteria of each of the
proposed tiers is identical, the Exchange proposes different rebates
for each of the tiers based on the type of order (i.e., liquidity
adding displayed orders, liquidity adding non-displayed orders, and
retail orders).
    The Exchange next proposes to modify the Non-Displayed Add Volume
Tier 2 under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to reduce the rebate from $0.0022 per share to $0.0020 per
share to orders meeting the required criteria. The Exchange proposes no
modifications to the required criteria of the tier.
    Last, the Exchange proposes to clarify that fee code X is
applicable to routed orders that add or remove liquidity. When certain
fee codes were deleted from the Fee Schedule, the Exchange
simultaneously proposed to update fee code X to make clear that it
applies to all other routed orders that are not otherwise specified
under other fee codes in the Fee Schedule.\18\ However, the Exchange
did not make clear in the fee code table that fee code X is therefore
also applicable to orders that both add and remove liquidity.\19\
Therefore, the Exchange is now proposing to add such language to the
description of fee code X, as well as eliminate the reference to
``Removing'' liquidity in the Standard Rates header for the Routing
Liquidity column (which is applicable to fee code X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act No. 91002 (January 27, 2021) 86
FR 7902 (February 2, 2021) (SR-CboeEDGX-2021-006).
    \19\ Under the Transaction Fees section of the Fee Schedule,
bullet four provides ``[u]nless otherwise noted, all routing fees or
rebates in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table are for removing
liquidity from the destination venue.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\20\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \21\ requirements that the rules
of an exchange be 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 regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market

system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \22\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers as well as Section 6(b)(4) \23\
as it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that
its proposal to reduce the rebates applicable to fee codes DM, HA, MM,
and RP is fair, equitable, and reasonable because the proposed rebate
remains consistent with pricing offered by the Exchange's affiliates
and competitors and does not represent a significant departure from the
Exchange's general pricing structure. Specifically, the proposed rebate
applicable to fee code DM, HA, MM, and RP are in-line with the rebates
provided to similar non-displayed orders offered by the Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), which provides rebates ranging from $0.0010
(Tape C securities) to $0.0014 (Tape A and B securities) for similar
orders.\24\ Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed rebates
associated with fee codes DM, HA, MM, and RP remain consistent with
pricing previously offered by the Exchange and other exchanges and does
not represent a significant departure from such pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ``Rebate to Add Non-Displayed Midpoint Liquidity
(excluding buy (sell) orders with Midpoint pegging that receive an
execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the
NBBO'' for firms that add less than 1 million shares of midpoint
liquidity on the Nasdaq fee schedule at http://nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to adopt the Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up
Volume Tier, and Retail Growth Tier 2 reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their
order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance
market quality to the benefit of all Members. While the criteria of
each of the proposed tiers is identical, the Exchange proposes
different rebates for each of the tiers based on the type of order
(i.e., liquidity adding displayed orders, liquidity adding non-
displayed orders, and retail orders). Additionally, the Exchange notes
that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely
adopted by exchanges,\25\ including the Exchange,\26\ and are
reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to
all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or
discounts that are reasonably related to (i) the value to an exchange's
market quality and (ii) associated higher levels of market activity,
such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns.
Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures,
including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members
achieving certain volume and/or growth thresholds, as well as assess
similar fees or rebates for similar types of orders, to that of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., BZX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/
Remove Volume Tiers.
    \26\ See, e.g., EDGX Equities Fee Schedule, Footnote 1, Add/
Remove Volume Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed new tiers and the
proposed change to reduce the rebate for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier
2 are reasonable because they will be available to all Members and
provide all Members with an additional opportunity to receive an
enhanced rebate. The Exchange further believes the proposed Growth Tier
5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier, and Retail Growth Tier 2 as well
as the existing Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier will provide a reasonable
means to encourage liquidity adding displayed orders, liquidity adding
non-displayed orders, and retail orders, respectively, in Members'
order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to
provide liquidity adding volume to the Exchange by offering them an
additional opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate on qualifying
orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's
liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, support the quality of
price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market
quality, for all investors.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable as
it does not represent a significant departure from the criteria
currently offered in the Fee Schedule. Specifically, the proposed new
tiers have criteria similar to the existing Growth Tier 4, albeit with
more stringent criteria that applies at the Member level rather than
the MPID level. Nonetheless, the Exchange believes that the enhanced
rebates under the proposed new tiers and the Non-Displayed Add Volume
Tier are commensurate with the criteria and the type of order flow
associated with the applicable tier by allowing for Member level
activity to become eligible for the rebate instead of only MPID level
activity. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an
equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members will be eligible for the proposed
new tiers and have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and
receive the corresponding enhanced rebate if such criteria is met.
Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule
change would definitely result in any Members qualifying the new
proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with
certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based
on the prior months volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least one
Member will be able to satisfy the criteria proposed under each
proposed new tier. The Exchange also notes that proposed changes will
not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for enhanced
rebates offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the
proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that
corresponding enhanced rebate.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposal to modify fee code X to
explicitly provide that it is applicable to routed orders that add and
remove liquidity on the destination exchange is not designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
Specifically, the proposal is intended only to make a clarifying change
to the Fee Schedule and involves no substantive change.

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. Rather, as discussed above,
the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the
submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby
promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution
opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of

individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed
change to the Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2 and the proposed new
Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier, and Retail Growth
Tier 2 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are
eligible for each of the Tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet
the Tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their
qualifying orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not
believe the proposed changes burdens competition, but rather, enhances
competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX
by amending an existing pricing incentive and adopting pricing
incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants
to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for
additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved
price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities,
and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the
Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage
Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-
balanced market ecosystem.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposal to decrease the rebate
associated with fee codes DM, HA, MM, or RP represent a significant
departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing
offered by the Exchange's competitors. Members may opt to disfavor the
Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better
value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to
maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 15% of the market share.\27\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \28\ The fact that this market is competitive has also
long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\29\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed fee change imposes any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Supra note 8.
    \28\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \29\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes its proposal to clarify that fee
code X is applicable to liquidity adding and removing orders will have
no impact on competition as it involves no substantive change to the
existing Fee Schedule.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \30\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \31\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-050. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2022-050 and should
be submitted on or before December 16, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25667 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 194-199]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28333]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R01-RCRA-2020-0175; FRL 8892-01-R1]

Massachusetts: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Massachusetts has applied to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of revisions to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended. The EPA has reviewed Massachusetts'
application, and has determined that these revisions satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization. Therefore, we
are taking direct final action to authorize the State's changes. In the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the Federal Register, the
EPA is also publishing a separate document that serves as the proposal
to authorize these revisions. Unless the EPA receives written comments
that oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision
to authorize Massachusetts' revisions to its hazardous waste program
will take effect.

DATES: This final authorization is effective on March 7, 2022, unless
the EPA receives adverse written comments by February 3, 2022. If the
EPA receives any such comment, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal
of this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
RCRA-2020-0175, at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Kinslow, RCRA Waste Management,
UST, and Pesticides Section; Land, Chemicals, and Redevelopment
Division; U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail code
07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

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

B. What decisions has the EPA made in this rule?

    On August 13, 2021, Massachusetts submitted a complete program
revision application seeking authorization of revisions to its
hazardous waste program. The EPA concludes that Massachusetts'
application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA
Section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, the
EPA grants final authorization to Massachusetts to operate its
hazardous waste program with the revisions described in its
authorization application, and as listed below in Section G of this
document.
    The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the
RCRA program described in its application, subject to the limitations
of HSWA, as discussed above.

C. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

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

D. Why wasn't there a proposed rule before today's rule?

    Along with this direct final rule, the EPA is publishing a separate
document in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
that serves as the proposal to authorize Massachusetts' program
revisions. The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule
because the EPA views this as a routine program change and does not
expect comments that oppose this approval. The EPA is providing an
opportunity for public comment now, as described in Section E of this
document.

E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, the
EPA will withdraw today's direct final rule by publishing a document in
the Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will
base any further decision on the authorization of Massachusetts'
program revisions on the proposal mentioned in the previous section,
after considering all comments received during the comment period. The
EPA will then address all such comments in a later final rule. You may
not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this
authorization, you must do so at this time.
    If the EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of
a particular revision to Massachusetts' hazardous waste program, the
EPA will withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the
program revisions that the comments do not oppose will become effective
on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document
will specify which part of the authorization will become effective, and
which part is being withdrawn.

F. What has Massachusetts previously been authorized for?

    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts initially received final
authorization effective February 7, 1985 (50 FR 3344, January 24, 1985)
to implement its base hazardous waste management program. The EPA
granted authorization for revisions to Massachusetts' regulatory
program on the following dates: September 30, 1998, effective November
30, 1998 (63 FR 52180); October 12, 1999, effective immediately (64 FR
55153); March 12, 2004, effective immediately (69 FR 11801); January
31, 2008, effective March 31, 2008 (73 FR 5753); and June 23, 2010,
effective August 23, 2010 (75 FR 35660). Additionally, on November 15,
2000, the EPA granted interim authorization for Massachusetts to
regulate Cathode Ray Tubes under the Toxicity Characteristics rule
through January 1, 2003, effective immediately (65 FR 68915). This
interim authorization was subsequently extended to run through January
1, 2006 (67 FR 66338, October 31, 2002) which was then further extended
until January 1, 2011 (70 FR 69900, November 18, 2005).

G. What revisions is the EPA proposing with this proposed action?

1. State-Initiated Revisions

    On August 13, 2021, Massachusetts submitted a final complete
program revision application, seeking authorization of additional
revisions to its program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
Massachusetts seeks authority to administer the Federal requirements
that are listed in Table 1 below, including certain waste listings that
were promulgated under HSWA authority. This table lists Massachusetts'
analogous requirements that are being recognized as no less stringent
than the analogous Federal requirements.
    Massachusetts' regulatory references are to Title 310 of Code of
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), Chapter 30, as amended effective
November 15, 2019. Massachusetts' statutory authority for its hazardous
waste program is based on the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management
Act of 1979 (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 21C).
    The EPA proposes to determine, subject to public review and
comment, that Massachusetts' hazardous waste program revisions are
equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal
program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to
qualify for final authorization. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
authorize Massachusetts for the following program revisions:

       Table 1--Massachusetts' Analogs to the Federal Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Federal Register     Analogous State
      Federal requirement         page and date          authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist (CL) 82: Wood         55 FR 50450;       Title 310 Code of
 Preserving Listings.            December 6, 1990.  Massachusetts
                                                    Regulations (310
                                                    CMR) 30.131, 30.160,
                                                    30.162, and
                                                    30.099(6)(n).
                                                   (More stringent
                                                    provisions: 30.010
                                                    and 30.200).
CL 92: Wood Preserving          56 FR 30192; July  310 CMR 30.099(6)(n).
 Listings; Technical             1, 1991.          (More stringent
 Corrections.                                       provisions: 30.010
                                                    and 30.200).
CL 110: Coke By-Product         57 FR 37284;       310 CMR 30.132 and
 Listings.                       August 18, 1992.   30.160.
                                                   (More stringent
                                                    provisions:
                                                    30.104(2)(b) and
                                                    30.200).
CL 120: Wood Preserving;        57 FR 61492;       310 CMR 30.131 and
 Amendments to Listings and      December 24,       30.099(6)(n).
 Technical Requirements.         1992.             (More stringent
                                                    provisions: 30.010).
CL 140: Carbamate Production    60 FR 7824;        310 CMR 30.132,
 Listings.                       February 9, 1995   30.133, 30.136,
                                 as amended April   30.160, and 30.162.
                                 17, 1995 (60 FR   (More stringent
                                 19165) and May     provisions:
                                 12, 1995 (60 FR    30.102(2)(c)2 and
                                 25619).            30.102(2)(d)).
CL 169: Petroleum Refining      63 FR 42110;       310 CMR
 Process Listings.               August 6, 1998,    30.102(2)(c)2.b.ii,
                                 as amended         30.131, 30.132, and
                                 October 9, 1998    30.160.
                                 (63 FR 54356).    (More stringent
                                                    provisions:
                                                    30.102(2)(d),
                                                    30.200, and 30.250).
CL 189: Chlorinated Aliphatics  65 FR 67067;       310 CMR 30.132 and
 Production Listings.            November 8, 2000.  30.160.
CL 195: Inorganic Chemical      66 FR 58257;       310 CMR 30.132 and
 Manufacturing Listings.         November 20,       30.160.
                                 2001, as amended  (More stringent
                                 April 9, 2002      provisions:
                                 (67 FR 17119).     30.102(2)(d)).
CL 209: Universal Waste Rule;   70 FR 45508;       310 CMR 30.010,
 Provisions for Mercury          August 5, 2005.    30.099(1),
 Containing Equipment.                              30.143(2),
                                                    30.501(2),
                                                    30.750(3)(d),
                                                    30.801(14),
                                                    30.1001(1), 30.1010,
                                                    30.1020(3) and (4),
                                                    30.1034(3) and (4),
                                                    30.1043(2), and
                                                    30.1044(3) and (4).
CL 215: Cathode Ray Tube        71 FR 42927; July  310 CMR 30.010,
 Exclusion.                      28, 2006.          30.104(3)(h), and
                                                    30.202(5)(g).
                                                   (More stringent
                                                    provisions:
                                                    30.104(3)(h)1.a and
                                                    30.104(3)(h)2.b.iii)
                                                    .

CL 220: Academic Laboratories   73 FR 72911;       310 CMR 30.010,
 Generator Standards.            December 1, 2008.  30.351(2)(b), and
                                                    30.354.
                                                   (More stringent
                                                    provisions:
                                                    30.354(3)(d) and
                                                    (e), 30.354(6)(a)1.d
                                                    and e, 30.354(9),
                                                    and 30.354(10)(d)).
CL 226: Corrections to the      75 FR 79304;       310 CMR 30.010 and
 Academic Laboratories           December 20,       30.354.
 Generator Standards.            2010.
CL 229: Conditional Exclusions  78 FR 46447; July  310 CMR 30.010 and
 for Solvent Contaminated        31, 2013.          30.104(3).
 Wipes.
CL 232: Revisions to the        79 FR 36220; June  310 CMR 30.010,
 Export Provisions of the        26, 2014.          30.104(3)(h), and
 Cathode Ray Tube Rule.                             30.202(5)(g).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Massachusetts has already received authorization for some of the
checklists in Table 1 to the extent that they contain provisions
related to the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program. Regulated
entities in Massachusetts that generate these HSWA wastes must comply
with the State LDR requirements for these wastes.
2. EPA-Initiated Revisions
    The EPA is also clarifying, subject to public review and comment,
the scope of Massachusetts' authorized program by explicitly
identifying rule checklists which pertain to provisions that have long
been part of Massachusetts' authorized program, but which were
inadvertently omitted from past authorizations. These checklists
include:
     CL 2: Permit Rules: Settlement Agreement (48 FR 39611,
September 1, 1983);
     CL 6: Permit Rules: Settlement Agreement (49 FR 17716,
April 24, 1984);
     CL 17H: HSWA Codification Rule: Double Liners (50 FR
28702, July 15, 1985);
     CL 17I: HSWA Codification Rule: Ground-water Monitoring
(50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985);
     CL 17P: HSWA Codification Rule: Interim Status (50 FR
28702, July 15, 1985);
     CL 17Q: HSWA Codification Rule: Research and Development
Permits (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985);
     CL 30: Biennial Report Correction (51 FR 28556, August 8,
1986);
     CL 36: Closure/Post-closure Care for Interim Status
Surface Impoundments (52 FR 8704, March 19, 1987);
     CL 38: Amendments to Part B Information Requirements for
Land Disposal Facilities (52 FR 23447, June 22, 1987 as amended
September 9, 1987 at 52 FR 33936);
     CL 54: Permit Modification for Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities (53 FR 37912, September 28, 1988 as amended October 24, 1988
at 53 FR 41649);
     CL 55: Statistical Methods for Evaluating Groundwater
Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities (53 FR 39720, October
11, 1988); and
     CL 61: Changes to Interim Status Facilities for Hazardous
Waste Management Permits; Modification of Hazardous Waste Management
Permits; Procedures for Post-Closure Permitting (54 FR 9596, March 7,
1989).
    In the process of seeking authorization for revisions to the State
authorized program, Massachusetts has not always used individual rule
checklists to demonstrate the equivalency of its State regulations to
the Federal program. In addition, Massachusetts has sometimes pursued
authorization for only some provisions of an individual rule checklist.
As a result, past authorization Federal Register notices may have
inadvertently omitted some rule checklists/provisions included in the
EPA's authorization decision for State program revisions. The EPA is
correcting these omissions with this authorization. The provisions in
the checklists cited above continue to be part of Massachusetts'
authorized program.
    Finally, there are several Federal rules that have been vacated,
withdrawn, or superseded. As a result, authorization of these rules may
be moot. However, for purposes of completeness, these rule checklists
are included, below, with an explanation as to the rule's status in
Massachusetts. These checklists include:
     CL 153: Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Disposal Options (61 FR 34252, July 1, 1996)--As the preamble to this
rule discussed, the EPA believes that States which do not allow the
disposal of wastes generated by CESQGs into Subtitle D landfills under
their existing authorized Subtitle C program would not be required to
revise their programs and obtain authorization for this rule, as they
would continue to be more stringent. The EPA encouraged states to
inform their regional office that for this final rule, they are not
required to submit a revision application. Massachusetts does not allow
wastes generated by CESQGs to be disposed in Subtitle D landfills. Note
that these federal provisions were subsequently superseded by the
Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rule (81 FR 85732, November 28,
2016).
     CL 199: Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials
Being Reclaimed (67 FR 11251, March 13, 2002)--This rule vacated
certain provisions from CL 167D: Mineral Processing Secondary Materials
Exclusion (63 FR 28556; May 26, 1998). Massachusetts did not adopt the
underlying provisions from CL 167D.
     CL 216: Exclusion of Oil-Bearing Secondary Materials
Processed in a Gasification System to Produce Synthetic Gas (73 FR 57,
January 2, 2008), CL 221: Expansion of RCRA Comparable Fuel Exclusion
(73 FR 77954, December 19, 2008), CL 224: Withdrawal of the Emission
Comparable Fuel Exclusion (75 FR 33712, June 15, 2010), and CL 234:
Vacatur of the Comparable Fuels Rule and the Gasification Rule (80 FR
18777, April 8, 2015)--CLs 216, 221, and 224 have been vacated. CL 234
implements the vacatur of these provisions. Massachusetts did not adopt
the exclusions contained in CLs 216, 221, or 224.
    Massachusetts' authorized program continues to be equivalent to and
no less stringent than the Federal program without having to make any
conforming changes pursuant to these rule checklists, as explained
above.

H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

1. Massachusetts Requirements That Are Broader in Scope

    Massachusetts' hazardous waste program contains certain provisions
that are broader than the scope of the Federal program. These broader
in

scope provisions are not part of the program the EPA is proposing to
authorize. The EPA cannot enforce requirements that are broader in
scope, although compliance with such provisions is required by State
law. Examples of broader in scope provisions of Massachusetts' program
include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (a) In 1996, the EPA vacated the K156, K157, and K158 waste
listings to the extent that they encompass wastes generated from the
manufacture of 3-iodo-2-popynyl n-butylcarbamate (IPBC). 310 CMR 30.132
does not exclude such wastes from coverage under Massachusetts'
analogous listings. State-only wastes such as K156, K157, and K158
wastes from the manufacture of IPBC make Massachusetts' universe of
regulated hazardous waste larger than the EPA's and, therefore, broader
in scope.

2. Massachusetts Requirements That Are More Stringent Than the Federal
Program

    Massachusetts' hazardous waste program contains several provisions
that are more stringent than the Federal RCRA program. More stringent
provisions are part of a Federally authorized program and are,
therefore, Federally-enforceable. Under this action, the EPA would
authorize every provision in Massachusetts' program that is more
stringent. Every provision of the proposed program revision that is
more stringent is noted in Table 1. They include, but are not limited
to, the following:
    (a) The EPA conditionally excludes certain listed wastes that are
reclaimed, reused, or otherwise recycled from the definition of solid
waste. In 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9), (10), and (19), the EPA conditionally
excludes any spent wood preserving solutions and wastewaters that are
reclaimed and reused, wastes from coke by-product processes that are
destined for recycling, and spent caustic solutions generated by
refineries that are used as feedstock, respectively. Massachusetts has
not adopted these exclusions for recycled listed wastes. Instead, 310
CMR 30.104(2)(b) excludes recyclable material that is reclaimed in
compliance with the requirements of 310 CMR 30.200 from hazardous waste
regulation. The provisions of 310 CMR 30.200, which include but are not
limited to obtaining a permit and managing recyclable material in
compliance with that permit, are more stringent than the conditions set
forth by the EPA at 40 CFR 261.4(a).
    (b) At 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12) and (18) and 261.6(a)(3)(iii) and (iv),
the EPA conditionally excludes certain recovered oil and oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials that are to be refined, re-refined, or
burned as fuels from regulation as hazardous waste. Certain oil-bearing
recyclable materials are subject to 40 CFR 279 standards for used oil
management. Massachusetts has not adopted the EPA's used oil
requirements, nor the EPA's exclusions for management of oil-bearing
recyclable materials. Instead, such waste is subject to 310 CMR 30.200
and specifically the waste oil management standards in 310 CMR 30.250,
which are more stringent than 40 CFR 279.
    (c) In the definition of ``drip pad'' at 310 CMR 30.010,
Massachusetts explicitly restricts use of drip pads to treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities that are in interim status.
Massachusetts does not permit generators or licensed treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities to use drip pads to convey treated
wood drippage, precipitation, and/or surface water run-off from an
associated collection system.
    (d) If wood preserving plants cease or do not initiate use of
chlorophenolic preservatives, the EPA allows wastes from such processes
to be exempt from the F032 listing once several cleaning, management,
and documentation conditions have been met (40 CFR 261.35).
Massachusetts has not adopted the conditions included in 40 CFR 261.35
and regulates all such waste as F032 listed hazardous waste.
    (e) The EPA excludes mixtures of non-hazardous waste with certain
listed hazardous wastes from the definition of hazardous waste if
certain conditions are met. The types of mixtures and associated
conditions for exclusion are listed in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv). 310 CMR
30.102(2)(c) incorporates many of these mixtures and associated
conditions for exclusion by reference. However, Massachusetts has not
adopted 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(F) and (G), relating to mixtures of non-
hazardous waste with wastewaters from the production or treatment of
carbamates and carbamoyl oximes (namely, K156 and K157 listed wastes).
Mixtures of non-hazardous wastes with K156 and/or K157 listed wastes
must be managed as hazardous wastes in Massachusetts.
    (f) The EPA conditionally excludes certain wastes generated from
the treatment, storage or disposal of listed wastes from hazardous
waste regulation. In 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(D), the EPA conditionally
excludes biological treatment sludge from the treatment of K156 and
K157 wastes. In 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(E), the EPA conditionally
excludes catalyst inert support media separated from K171 and K172
wastes. In 40 CFR 261.4(b)(15), the EPA conditionally excludes leachate
or gas condensate collected in landfills where certain inorganic
chemical manufacturing wastes (namely, K169, K170, K171, K172, K174,
K175, K176, K 177, K178, and K181) have been disposed. Massachusetts,
at 310 CMR 30.102(d), regulates all waste generated from the treatment,
storage, disposal, or use of a hazardous waste as hazardous waste,
including any sludge, spill residue, ash emission control dust, and
leachate.
    (g) The Massachusetts provisions for used, broken cathode ray tubes
(CRTs) and processed CRT glass undergoing recycling are more stringent
than the Federal requirements in two regards. First, 310 CMR
30.104(3)(h)1.a requires that all used, broken CRTs be containerized,
rather than providing an option to store used, broken CRTs in a
building as provided at 40 CFR 261.39(a)(1). Second, at 310 CMR
30.104(3)(h)2.b.iii, Massachusetts requires companies that conduct CRT
processing to submit a one-time notification to MassDEP prior to
commencing CRT processing. The Federal CRT recycling provisions do not
require such a notification.
    (h) Several of Massachusetts' provisions at 310 CMR 30.354,
alternative requirements for unwanted materials generated by academic
laboratories, are more stringent than the Federal analogous
requirements. First, teaching hospitals and nonprofit research
institutes that are not owned by a college or university must keep
their written formal affiliation agreements on file with the Director
of Laboratories for as long as the laboratories are subject to
alternative requirements (310 CMR 30.354(3)(d) and (e), respectively).
The EPA does not specify where or with whom such affiliation agreements
must be filed or maintained. Second, the container labeling
requirements at 40 CFR 262.206(a)(2) do not require that date the
unwanted material began accumulating and other information sufficient
to allow trained professionals to identify the materials be affixed or
attached to the container. Massachusetts does require this information
be affixed or attached to the container, as described at 310 CMR
30.354(6)(a)1. Finally, although the Federal provisions have less
stringent requirements for where and when Very Small Quantity
Generators (VSQGs) must make hazardous waste determinations, as
compared to Small and Large Quantity Generators (SQGs and LQGs,
respectively), 310 CMR 30.354(10) requires VSQGs to comply with the

same standards as SQGs and LQGs when making a hazardous waste
determination in the laboratory before the unwanted material is removed
from the laboratory.
    (i) Massachusetts has prohibited VSQGs from acquiring and utilizing
drum-top crushers to crush mercury-containing lamps after the effective
date of the revised regulations, unless they first obtain a license to
treat hazardous waste. This requirement, at 310 CMR 30.353(10), is more
stringent than the federal provisions, which do not restrict or require
permits for treatment by VSQGs.

I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Massachusetts will continue to issue permits covering all the
provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits
it issues. The EPA will continue to administer and enforce any RCRA and
HSWA permits or portions of permits that the EPA issued prior to the
effective date of this authorization in accordance with the signed
Memorandum of Agreement, dated September 30, 2021, which is included
with this program revision application. Until such time as formal
transfer of the EPA permit responsibility to Massachusetts occurs and
the EPA terminates its permit, the EPA and Massachusetts agree to
coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain
consistency. The EPA will not issue any new permits or new portions of
permits for the provisions listed in Section G after the effective date
of this authorization. The EPA will continue to implement and issue
permits for HSWA requirements for which Massachusetts is not yet
authorized.

J. How would this action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in
Massachusetts?

    Massachusetts has not applied for and is not authorized to carry
out its hazardous waste program in Indian country within the State,
which includes the land of the Wampanoag tribe. Therefore, this action
has no effect on Indian country. The EPA retains jurisdiction over
Indian country and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA
program on these lands.

K. What is codification and will the EPA codify Massachusetts'
hazardous waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing citations and references to
the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's
authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal
Regulations. The EPA does this by adding those citations and references
to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. The EPA is not
codifying the authorization of Massachusetts' revisions at this time.
However, the EPA reserves the ability to amend 40 CFR part 272, subpart
W for the authorization of Massachusetts' program at a later date.

L. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action authorizes
State requirements for the purpose of RCRA section 3006 and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Therefore,
this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action is not an
Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action
because actions such as today's authorization of Massachusetts' revised
hazardous waste program under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this action authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538). For the same reason,
this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State
RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA section 3006(b), the EPA grants a state's application
for authorization as long as the state meets the criteria required by
RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA,
when it reviews a state authorization application, to require the use
of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in taking this action, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of this action in accordance with
the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of
Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the
executive order. This action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). ``Burden'' is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
Because this action authorizes pre-existing State rules which are at
least equivalent to, and no less stringent than existing Federal
requirements, and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law, and there are no anticipated significant adverse
human health or environmental effects, this rule is not subject to
Executive Order 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Deb Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region I.
[FR Doc. 2021-28333 Filed 1-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaAdvancedSearch">
<META name="creation-date" content="23/12/2008 02:59:18 ">
<TITLE>http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaAdvancedSearch</TITLE>

Home

Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
EO 12866 Regulatory Review
Information Collection Review
Current Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Historical Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Search
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Criteria: Publication ID=200804; Agency=Food and Drug Administration; Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking=Proposed Rule Stage; Priority=Other Significant;
Number Of Records Found:
View All RIN Data (Max 350)
Agency
Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking
Title
Publication
RIN
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Reporting Information Regarding Falsification of Data
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC59
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage
Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and
Biologics; Requirements for Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF11
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage
Blood Initiative--Requirements for Human Blood and Blood
Components Intended for Transfusion or for Further Manufacturing
Use
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF25
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage
Label Requirement for Food That Has Been Refused Admission Into
the United States
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF61
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Combination Products
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF81
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Postmarket Safety Reporting for Combination Products
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF82
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Medical Device Reporting; Electronic Submission Requirements
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF86
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Electronic Registration and Listing for Devices
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF88
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 and
Proposed Revisions To Implement Portions of Title XI of the Medicare
Other Changes
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF97
HHS/FDA
Proposed Rule Stage  Pet Food Labeling Requirements
Spring 2008
0910
-
AG09
Disclosure
Accessibility
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

Page 1 of 1
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
8/26/2008
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaAdvancedSearch

Home

Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
EO 12866 Regulatory Review
Information Collection Review
Current Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Historical Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Search
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Criteria: Publication ID=200804; Agency=Food and Drug Administration; Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking=Final Rule Stage; Priority=Other Significant;
Number Of Records Found:
View All RIN Data (Max 350)
Agency
Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking
Title
Publication
RIN
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing
Requirements for Human Drugs, Including Drugs That Are Regulated
Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs
Spring 2008
0910
-
AA49
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Safety Reporting Requirements for Human Drug and Biological
Products
Spring 2008
0910
-
AA97
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Additional Safeguards for Children in Clinical Investigations
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC07
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Exception From General Requirements for Informed Consent; Request
for Comments and Information
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC25
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Toll -Free Number for Reporting Adverse Events on Labeling for
Human Drugs
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC35
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Medical Gas Containers and Closures; Current Good Manufacturing
Practice Requirements
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC53
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Positron Emission Tomography Drugs; Current Good Manufacturing
Practices
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC55
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Cochineal Extract and Carmine Label Declaration
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF12
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Charging for Investigational Drugs
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF13
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF14
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Human Subject Protection; Foreign Clinical Studies Not Conducted
Under an Investigational New Drug Application
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF15
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Designation of Special Control
for Condoms and Condoms With Spermicidal Lubricant
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF21
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Blood Initiative--Revisions to Labeling Requirements for Blood and
Blood Components, Including Source Plasma; and Technical
Amendment
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF26
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Infant Formula: Current Good Manufacturing Practices; Quality
Control Procedures; Notification Requirements; Records and Reports
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF27
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Infant Formula Quality Factors
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF28
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF47
HHS/FDA
Final Rule Stage
Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; Removal of Essential Use
Designations [Flunisolide, Triamcinolone, Metaproterenol, Pirbuterol,
Albuterol and Ipratropium in Combination, Cromolyn, and
Nedocromil]
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF93
Disclosure
Accessibility
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

Page 1 of 1
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
8/26/2008
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaAdvancedSearch

Home

Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
EO 12866 Regulatory Review
Information Collection Review
Current Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Historical Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan
Search
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Criteria: Publication ID=200804; Agency=Food and Drug Administration; Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking=Long-Term Actions; Priority=Other Significant;
Number Of Records Found:
View All RIN Data (Max 350)
Agency
Agenda Stage of
Rulemaking
Title
Publication
RIN
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions  Research To Consider Nutrient Content and Health Claims and
Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling: Consumer
Possible Footnote or Disclosure Statements
Spring 2008
0910
-
AC50
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions  Food Standards: General Principles and Food Standards Modernization  Spring 2008
0910
-
AC54
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions  Food Labeling; Prominence of Calories
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF22
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions
Food Labeling; Serving Sizes of Products That Can Reasonably Be
Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Updating of Reference Amounts
Customarily Consumed; Approaches for Recommending Smaller
Portion Sizes
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF23
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions  Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Review--Sunscreen Products
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF43
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions
Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drug Review--Vaginal Contraceptive
Products
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF44
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Medical Products Intended for
Use in Humans and Drugs Intended for Use in Ruminants
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF54
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions
Exceptions or Alternatives To Labeling Requirements for Products
Held by the Strategic National Stockpile
Spring 2008
0910
-
AF90
HHS/FDA
Long-Term Actions  Animal Feed Ingredient Standards and Definitions
Spring 2008
0910
-
AG08
Disclosure
Accessibility
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

Page 1 of 1
Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan Search Results
8/26/2008
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaAdvancedSearch


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59703]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Environmental Impact Statement; Taos Regional Airport, Taos, NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we
have prepared a Record of Decision (ROD) for the ``Taos Regional
Airport, Airport Layout Plan Improvements'' Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Town of Taos, owner and operator of Taos Regional
Airport located in Taos, New Mexico, has requested the FAA to approve
revisions to its Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to reflect and allow
construction of a new runway and other associated airport projects; the
Town is requesting Federal funding for the project. This ROD sets forth
FAA's final determination and environmental approvals for the federal
actions necessary to implement the proposed airport improvements under
Alternative 2D, the FAA's selected alternative, and the Airport Sponsor
to proceed with processing an application for federal funding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Dean McMath,
Regional Environmental Programs, Manager, ASW613, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Town of Taos, as owner and operator of
SKX requested FAA to approve revisions to its Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
and provide funding for a proposed new Runway 12/30 measuring 8,600-
foot by 100-foot, a full length parallel taxiway, runway lighting,
navigational aids, runway safety areas (RSA), runway protection zones,
associated grading, drainage, utility relocations, installation of a
Remote Transmitter/Receiver, shortening of the existing Runway 4/22 by
420 feet to the northeast with an associated shift of the RSA Runway
Object Free Area (ROFA), and Runway Protection Zone (RPZ),
establishment of new flight procedures for both runways, construction
of a new airport access road, and extension of the existing airport
access road from the existing automobile parking lot to the Fixed Base
Operator hangar/terminal. The purpose of the proposed improvements is
to correct the operational deficiencies of the existing runway system
at SKX and improve safety of the operating environment at the airport.
    The Draft and Final EIS were prepared in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), [42 U.S.C. 4321, et
seq.], the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) [40 CFR parts 1500-15081, and FAA directives [Order
1050.1E and Order 5050.4B]. The Taos Pueblo and National Park Service
served as cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of
availability of the Final EIS in the Federal Register on June 29, 2012.
    In accordance with CEQ regulations, the ROD discusses the
alternatives considered for the project; the basis for selecting the
Preferred Alternative, a summary of impacts; and mitigation measures
for the Preferred Alternative. The ROD documents the final Agency
decisions regarding the proposed project as described and analyzed in
the EIS. The FAA is granting approval to amend the ALP with the
conditions noted in Section 9.7 of the ROD and approval to proceed with
processing an application for federal funding of those development
items qualifying for financial aid under the Airports Improvement
Program (AlP).
    The ROD is available for review during normal business hours at the
following locations: FAA Southwest Regional Office, 2601 Meacham
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298, Taos Regional Airport, Highway
64 West, 1 Airport Road, Taos, New Mexico 87571, Taos Town Hall, 400
Camino de la Placita, Taos, New Mexico 87571 and Taos Public Library,
402 Camino de la Placita, Taos, New Mexico 87571.

    Issued on September 20, 2012.
Kelvin L. Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-23830 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Attached is a log of the comments made during the public meeting held on 30 July 2009.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14806-14807]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4102-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4102-DR), dated February 22,
2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated February 22, 2013, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Louisiana

resulting from severe storms and flooding during the period of
January 8-17, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Louisiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. Stolar, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Acadia, Catahoula, Concordia, East Carroll, Evangeline,
Franklin, Jefferson Davis, Livingston, Madison, St. Landry and
Vermilion Parishes.
    All parishes within the State of Louisiana are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-05297 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P