[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18963-18968]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0036-200801(a); FRL-8551-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Approval of Revisions to the 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan
for the Raleigh/Durham and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a February 4,
2008, revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
on behalf of the State of North Carolina for the purpose of revising
the subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Greensboro/
Winston-Salem/High Point area. The Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point
1-hour ozone maintenance area (hereafter referred to as the ``Triad
Area'') is comprised of Davidson, Forsyth, and Guilford Counties and a
portion of Davie County. The revisions to the subarea MVEBs are
approvable because of an available safety margin for volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for this Area.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective June 9, 2008 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 8, 2008. If EPA
receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0036, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    (a) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (b) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0036, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    3. Hand Delivery or Courier: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, or Amanetta Wood, Air Quality Modeling
Transportation Section, of the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2008-0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
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 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nacosta C. Ward of the Regulatory
Development Section, or Ms. Amanetta Wood, Air Quality Modeling
Transportation Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone numbers are<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER> respectively.
Ms. Nacosta Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Amanetta

Wood can be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?
III. What Is the Effect of This Action? [FEDREG][VOL]*[/VOL][NO]*[/
NO][DATE]*[/DATE][RULES][RULE][PREAMB][AGENCY]*[/AGENCY][SUBJECT]*[/
SUBJECT][/PREAMB][SUPLINF][HED]*[/HED][REGTEXT][EXTRACT][P]*[/P]?>
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Subarea VOC and
NOX for the Triad Area?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve North Carolina's SIP
revision submitted on February 4, 2008, which includes revisions to the
subarea \1\ 2010, 2012, and 2015 MVEBs for VOC and NOX for
the Triad Area because it meets all requirements of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act''). These new MVEBs revise those
established in a September 20, 2004 (69 FR 56163) direct final
rulemaking entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation of
Plans; North Carolina: Raleigh/Durham Area and Greensboro/Winston-
Salem/High Point Area Maintenance Plan Updates.'' The revised subarea
MVEBs are in the below tables:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The term ``subarea'' refers to the portion of the area, in a
nonattainment or maintenance area, for which the MVEBs apply. In
this case, the ``subareas'' are established at the county level so
this indicates that the MVEBs cover individual counties and also
indicates to transportation conformity implementers in this area
that there are separate county-level MVEBs for each county in this
area. EPA's Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final
Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality
Standards explains more about the possible geographical extents of a
MVEB, how these geographical areas are defined, and how
transportation conformity is implemented in these different
geographical areas.

                     Table 1.--Davidson County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revised subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................     4.91     4.50     4.12
NOX..........................................     8.09     6.83     5.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Table 2.--Davie* County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revised subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................     0.03     0.03     0.03
NOX..........................................     0.05     0.05     0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Davie County MVEBs are for the portion of Davie County in the
  maintenance area.

                     Table 3.--Forsyth County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revised subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................    10.31     9.36     8.50
NOX..........................................    15.04    12.72     9.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 4.--Guilford County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Revised subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................    14.86    13.46    12.17
NOX..........................................    20.87    17.66    13.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This direct final rulemaking is in response to North Carolina's
February 4, 2008, SIP submittal which supersedes North Carolina's
December 20, 2007, submittal that included a request for parallel
processing.

II. What Is the Background for EPA's Action?

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for ozone attainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (reasonable further progress and attainment
demonstration, etc.) and maintenance plans establish MVEBs for criteria
pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and
trucks. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, an MVEB is established for the last
year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years
as well. States also have the option to revise MVEBs at any time
through a SIP revision. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable
emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway
and transit vehicle use and emissions. See, 40 CFR 93.101. The MVEB
serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation
system. The MVEB concept is further explained in the preamble to the
November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188). The
preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in the SIP and how to
revise the MVEB.
    The Triad Area was designated as a nonattainment area for the 1-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (``NAAQS'' or
``standard'') on November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694). In 1993, after the
area had three consecutive years, 1990-1992, of air quality data
showing attainment of the standard, the State of North Carolina,
through NCDENR, submitted a redesignation request and a maintenance
plan for the Triad Area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On September 9,
1993, EPA redesignated the Triad Area to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS and approved the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (58 FR
47391).
    Consistent with the CAA, ozone reductions are achieved by
establishing NAAQS, such as the 1-hour and subsequent 8-hour ozone
standard, and implementing the measures necessary to reduce ozone and
its precursors. In the April 30, 2004, rulemaking entitled ``Air
Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas with Deferred
Effective Dates'' (69 FR 23858), EPA designated every county in the
United States unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the new 8-
hour ozone standard. The Triad Area was designated as nonattainment
with a deferred effective date as part of the Early Action Compact
program. (For more information on the Early Action Compact--or EAC--
Program, see, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/
index.htm#RMNotices.) One year after the effective date of these
designations, June 15, 2005, the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked in
most areas. However, the 1-hour ozone standard was not revoked for
previous 1-hour nonattainment areas that are currently 8-hour EAC
areas, such as the Triad Area, even if those areas were designated as
attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to the 8-hour ozone
designations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An EAC is an agreement between a State, local governments
and EPA to implement measures not necessarily required by the Act in
order to achieve cleaner air as soon as possible. The program was
designed for areas that approach or monitor exceedances of the 8-
hour ozone standard, but are in attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard. These areas continue to implement transportation
conformity requirements related to the 1-hour ozone standard. See,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htm#RMNotices, for
further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Triad EAC Area is attaining the 8-hour ozone
standard with a design value of 0.083 parts per million (ppm) using the
latest three years of quality assured data for the years of 2005-2007.
On February 6, 2008 (73 FR 6863), EPA proposed that 13 nonattainment
areas, including the Triad Area, with deferred effective dates be
designated attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, because they have
met all of the milestones of the EAC program and have demonstrated that
they were in attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as of December 31,
2007. A final decision will be made on designations by April 15, 2008.
EPA also proposed that one year after the

effective date of these designations, the 1-hour ozone standard be
revoked and the transportation conformity requirements no longer remain
in effect.
    On June 4, 2004, NCDENR submitted revisions to North Carolina's SIP
to provide a 10-year update to the Triad Area's 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan as required by section 175A(b) of the CAA. In addition
to meeting the requirements of 175A(b), the revisions established
subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area for the years 2004, 2007, 2010, 2012,
and 2015. Some of these subarea MVEBs are currently being used by the
transportation partners to demonstrate conformity, as approved in the
September 20, 2004, rulemaking. The subarea MVEBs that are currently
being used by transportation partners in the Triad Area are noted in
the tables below:

                     Table 5.--Davidson County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Current subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................     4.73     4.38     3.94
NOX..........................................     7.79     6.36     4.72
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 6.--Davie * County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Current subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................     0.01     0.01     0.01
NOX..........................................     0.02     0.02    0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Davie County MVEBs are for the portion of Davie County in the
  maintenance area.

                     Table 7.--Forsyth County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Current subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................     9.93     9.12     8.14
NOX..........................................    14.49    11.83     8.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 8.--Guilford County MVEBs
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Current subarea MVEBs
                                              --------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................    14.32    13.10    11.66
NOX..........................................    20.11    16.44    12.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The tables above showing the currently approved subarea MVEBs for
the Triad Area reflect the total on-road emissions for 2010, 2012 and
2015, plus an allocation from the available VOC and NOX
safety margins for each year. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.101, the term
``safety margin'' is the difference between the attainment level (from
all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in
the maintenance area. The safety margin can be allocated to the
transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below
the attainment level. These subarea MVEBs and the allocations from the
safety margin were developed in consultation with the transportation
partners and were added to account for uncertainties in population
growth, changes in model vehicle miles traveled and new emission factor
models. The allocated portion of the safety margins for the Triad Area
that was approved in the September 20, 2004, rulemaking are as follows:

               Table 9.--Safety Margins for the Triad Area
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Safety margin allocations for VOC and
                                                    NOX
             County              ---------------------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson........................  VOC             0.27     0.47     0.51
                                  NOX             0.44     0.42     0.43
Davie...........................  VOC             0.00     0.00     0.00
                                  NOX             0.00     0.00     0.00
Forsyth.........................  VOC             0.56     0.98     1.06
                                  NOX             0.82     0.77     0.80
Guilford........................  VOC             0.81     1.40     1.52
                                  NOX             1.14     1.08     1.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total remaining VOC safety margins after allocating a portion
of the safety margin to the subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area are 26.59
tons per day (tpd) in 2010, 26.41 tpd in 2012, and 25.50 tpd in 2015.
The total remaining NOX safety margins after allocating a
portion of the safety margin to the subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area is
58.61 tpd in 2010, 66.09 tpd in 2012, and 74.21 tpd in 2015. For more
information on the total remaining safety margins, see the September
20, 2004, direct final rulemaking.
    On February 4, 2008, the State of North Carolina, through NCDENR,
submitted a request to revise the subarea MVEBs for the Triad 1-hour
ozone maintenance area for the years 2010, 2012, and 2015. The new
allocation of the safety margins to the subarea MVEBs is discussed in
section IV of this direct final rulemaking.
    Through the Triad Area's Interagency Consultation Group, which
includes the North Carolina transportation and air quality partners,
NCDENR identified a need for revised subarea MVEBs to allow for growth
in the transportation sector. NCDENR, a partner of the Interagency
Consultation Group, evaluated the option of revising the subarea MVEBs
for the Triad Area and prepared a February 4, 2008, SIP revision to
effectuate that option. The February 4, 2008, SIP revision was
submitted to EPA for approval and requested a change to the subarea
MVEBs by allocating a portion of the available safety margins to the
subarea MVEBs. This allocation is discussed further in section of IV of
this direct final rulemaking.

III. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    The subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area are established for each
metropolitan planning organization (MPO), and in some instances,
counties that are ``donut areas.'' The conformity rule defines a donut
area as the portion of a metropolitan nonattainment or maintenance area
that is located outside an MPO's planning boundary (40 CFR 93.101).
Donut areas are not considered isolated rural nonattainment and

maintenance areas under the transportation conformity rule.
    The transportation conformity rule, specifically, 40 CFR 93.124(c)
and (d), provide the regulatory mechanism for establishing and
implementing subarea SIP MVEBs. In July 2004, EPA released a guidance
document that provided additional details for implementing conformity
in multi-jurisdictional areas, including establishing subarea SIP MVEBs
in areas with multiple MPOs, entitled ``Companion Guidance for the July
1, 2004 Final Transportation Conformity Rule Conformity Implementation
in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for
Existing and New Air Quality Standards,'' EPA 420A-B-04-012 (2004
Guidance). Although this guidance did not address the situation where
subarea MVEBs are established for a donut area, such MVEBs may be
established in a manner consistent with the requirements of the CAA
that ensures that conformity determinations in the Triad Area will
continue to meet federal conformity requirements.
    Statutory and regulatory requirements regarding conformity may be
met for the entire nonattainment or maintenance area if conformity is
determined for every subarea SIP MVEBs at least every four years. Only
by meeting all subarea SIP MVEBs can the SIP's overall purpose be met.
CAA section 176(c) states that the federal government and MPOs cannot
approve transportation activities unless they conform to the SIP and
its SIP-approved MVEBs. See also, page 21 of the 2004 Guidance. In a
nonattainment or maintenance area with more than one MPO, all MPOs must
conform even if the SIP has established subarea MVEBs. EPA believes
that this same legal standard applies in the case where the SIP
establishes a subarea MVEBs for a donut area.
    With regard to the February 4, 2008, revisions to the Triad 1-hour
ozone maintenance area subarea MVEBs have been established for the
Area's MPOs and donut areas. As a result, conformity determinations
must be completed for all subarea MVEBs according to the statutory
requirement to determine conformity at least every four years in areas
with MPOs, transportation plans, and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIPs). MPOs must determine conformity to their respective
transportation plans and TIPs every four years, and the interagency
consultation process for the Triad Area should ensure that conformity
is demonstrated for any subarea MVEBs for a donut area at least every
four years as well. In the event that an MPO or donut area cannot
demonstrate conformity on a four-year cycle, the other subareas cannot
complete a conformity determination until all subareas conform. For
further information regarding the conformity implications of not
meeting subarea MVEBs, see pages 20-21 of the 2004 Guidance. The effect
of this action will make new subarea MVEBs available to transportation
partners in North Carolina.

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Subarea VOC and
NOX for the Triad Area?

    In a June 4, 2004, SIP submittal, NCDENR, after interagency
consultation with the transportation partners for the Triad Area,
elected to develop county-level subarea MVEBs for VOC and
NOX. In addition to other years, North Carolina developed
these MVEBs, for the years 2010, 2012, and 2015 of its maintenance
plan. The aforementioned MVEBs reflect the total on-road emissions for
2010, 2012 and 2015, plus an allocation from the available VOC and
NOX safety margins for each year. Refer to the section II
entitled ``What is the Background for EPA's Proposed Actions?'' of this
rulemaking for further explanation of the safety margin. These MVEBs
were approved into the SIP in the September 20, 2004, direct final
rulemaking. On February 4, 2008, NCDENR submitted a SIP revision
seeking to change the MVEBs that were approved in the September 20,
2004, SIP revision. The February 4, 2008, change is consistent with the
CAA. The revised subarea VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Triad
Area are defined in the revised MVEBs tables, Tables 1 through 4, in
section I of this direct final rulemaking.
    North Carolina has chosen to allocate a portion of the available
safety margin to the 2010, 2012 and 2015 subarea VOC and NOX
MVEBs. The following table identifies the amount of the safety margin
that was allotted to the 2010, 2012 and 2015 VOC and NOX
subarea MVEBs per the February 4, 2008, submittal:

      Table 10.--Revised Safety Margin Allocations for VOC and NOX
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Revised safety margin allocations for
                                                VOC and NOX
             County              ---------------------------------------
                                                 2010     2012     2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davidson........................  VOC             0.45     0.59     0.69
                                  NOX             0.74     0.89     0.86
Davie...........................  VOC             0.02     0.02     0.02
                                  NOX             0.03     0.03     0.04
Forsyth.........................  VOC             0.94     1.22     1.42
                                  NOX             1.37     1.66     1.60
Guilford........................  VOC             1.35     1.76     2.03
                                  NOX             1.90     2.30     2.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total remaining VOC safety margin after allocation of some of
the safety margin to the subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area is 25.47 tpd
in 2010, 25.67 tpd in 2012, and 24.43 tpd in 2015. The total remaining
NOX safety margin after allocation of some of the safety
margin to the subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area is 56.97 tpd in 2010,
63.48 tpd in 2012, and 71.84 tpd in 2015.
    Through this rulemaking, EPA is approving the revised 2010, 2012
and 2015 subarea MVEBs for VOC and NOX for the Triad Area
because EPA has determined that the Area maintains the 1-hour ozone
standard with the emissions at the levels of the MVEBs and demonstrates
that based upon expected emissions for all other source categories, the
Triad Area will continue to maintain the 1-hour ozone standard.
    As mentioned above, these MVEBs are subarea MVEBs for each
individual

county in the Triad Area. Once the new subarea MVEBs for the Triad Area
(the subject of this rulemaking) are approved they must be used for
future conformity determinations.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for
the Triad Area submitted by NCDENR on February 4, 2008. Tables 1-4,
above, list the new MVEBs for VOC and NOX being approved in
this action. Table 10, above, lists the new available safety margins
being approved in this action. The safety margin was reallocated as
described in section IV of this action.
    Within 24 months from the effective date of this direct final rule
or the date of publication for the final rule for this action, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
subarea MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January
24, 2008).
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 9, 2008
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
May 8, 2008.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 9, 2008 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule 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 rule approves 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule 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 June 9, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 27, 2008.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770 (e) is amended by adding a new entry at the end of
the table for ``1-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan revision for the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register
              Provision                 State effective date       EPA approval date             citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan         February 4, 2008........  April 8, 2008..........  [Insert first page of
 revision for the Greensboro/Winston-                                                     publication].
 Salem/High Point area (Davidson,
 Forsyth, and Guilford counties and
 a portion of Davie County).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-7186 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12403-12404]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Actions Related to
the Renewal of a Launch Operator License for Pegasus Expendable Launch
Vehicles at Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the FONSI.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 (as amended), Council on Environmental
Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is
announcing the availability of a FONSI, based on the analysis and
findings of the January 2005 National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Final Site-Wide Environmental Assessment (EA) for
Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia (hereafter referred to as the 2005
EA). The 2005 EA evaluates the potential

environmental impacts of recurring activities and proposed future
actions at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF). Under the Proposed Action in
the 2005 EA, NASA would construct new facilities, demolish old
facilities, and improve existing facilities at WFF. In addition, NASA
would expand operations at WFF while continuing existing operations.
Operations activities considered in the 2005 EA included rocket
launches of multiple vehicle types, including the Pegasus vehicle,
among other flight-related activities. Under the FAA's Proposed Action
as stated in the FONSI, the FAA would renew a Launch Operator License
to Orbital Sciences Corporation for the continued operation of Pegasus
expendable launch vehicles at WFF. A launch operator license would
authorize launches of Pegasus vehicles over the 5-year term of the
license.
    In accordance with the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1,
paragraph 410, the FAA has independently evaluated the information
contained in the 2005 EA and has verified the continued validity of the
analysis contained in the EA. The FAA has determined that the 2005 EA
sufficiently addresses the concerns of the FAA and complies with FAA
requirements for implementing NEPA as stated in FAA Order 1050.1E,
Change 1. The FAA has determined that there is no new information or
analysis that would require preparation of a new or supplemental EA or
Environmental Impact Statement according to the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR
1502.9(c)(1)). Therefore, the FAA issues the FONSI concurring with the
analysis of impacts and findings in the 2005 EA and formally adopts the
EA in compliance with the requirements 40 CFR 1506.3 to support
renewing a Launch Operator License to Orbital Sciences Corporation for
the continued operation of Pegasus expendable launch vehicles at WFF.
The 2005 EA is incorporated by reference and is summarized as necessary
in the FONSI. NASA has posted the 2005 EA on the internet at http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/Final%20Site-Wide%20EA.pdf.
    The FAA has posted the FONSI on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental
Program Lead, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room 325,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on March 1, 2011.
Michael McElligott,
Manager, Space Systems Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-5104 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10483-10490]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03467]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 200

[Release No. 34-96906; PA-59; File No. S7-03-23]
RIN 3235-AN21

The Commission's Privacy Act Regulations

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or
``SEC'') is proposing amendments to the Commission's regulations under
the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (``Privacy Act''). The proposed
amendments would revise the Commission's regulations under the Privacy
Act to clarify, update, and streamline the language of several
procedural provisions.

DATES: Comments should be received by April 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/submitcomments.htm);
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number S7-03-23 on the subject line; or

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-03-23. 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 of submission. The Commission will post comments on
the Commission's website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml).
Comments are also 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Operating conditions may limit access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. 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.
    Studies, memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the
Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A
notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials
will be made available on our website. To ensure direct electronic
receipt of such notifications, sign up through the ``Stay Connected''
option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray McInerney, FOIA/PA Officer, Office
of FOIA Services,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-5041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Privacy Act is the principal law governing the handling of
personal information in the Federal government. It governs the
collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about
individuals that is maintained in systems of records by Federal
agencies. The Privacy Act also affords individuals a right of access to
records pertaining to them and a right to have inaccurate records
corrected. The Commission last amended its Privacy Act regulations in
2011.
    In the course of reviewing our regulations under the Privacy Act,
we have identified areas where it would be beneficial to clarify,
update, and streamline the language of several provisions. Accordingly,
we are proposing revisions to our Privacy Act regulations. The proposed
revisions include: adding a provision setting forth the process by
which individuals may be provided with an accounting of disclosures
made by the Commission; adding a provision to codify the existing
practice of providing 90 days to file an administrative appeal in
response to a denial of a Privacy Act inquiry or request; deleting
certain existing provisions that are duplicative and unnecessary;
reorganizing certain provisions; and updating the fee provisions.\1\
Due to the scope of the proposed revisions, the proposed rule would
replace the Commission's current Privacy Act regulations in their
entirety (17 CFR 200.301 through 200.313).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The terms ``inquiry'' and ``request'' are defined in 5
U.S.C. 552a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Amendments To Update, Clarify, and Streamline the Privacy
Act Regulations

    We are proposing to amend certain procedural provisions to clarify,
update, and streamline the Commission's regulations.\2\ The proposed
revisions, among other things: clarify the purpose and scope of the
regulations (proposed Section 200.301); update definitions so that the
processes set forth in the regulations are more plainly described
(proposed 17 CFR 200.302); simplify the processes for submitting and
receiving responses to Privacy Act inquiries, requests, and
administrative appeals (proposed 17 CFR 200.303, 305, 306, 307, and
308); allow for requesters to electronically verify their identities,
including by facsimile, email, or an online Commission form (proposed
17 CFR 200.303); \3\ provide for a shorter Commission response time to
Privacy Act inquiries as to whether a specific system of records
maintained by the Commission contains a record pertaining to the
requester, which aligns with other relevant time lines (proposed 17 CFR
200.304); update agency contact information (e.g., office names,
facsimile numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses) (proposed
17 CFR 200.303, 305, 308, and 309); and update the list of Commission
systems of records that have promulgated rules exempting certain
records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act (proposed 17 CFR
200.310).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These amendments are discussed in greater detail in Section
IV. Economic Analysis.
    \3\ The Office of FOIA Services currently accepts electronic
submission of verification of identity in all of these formats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Revisions to Fee Provisions

    The proposed amendments would revise the fee provisions (proposed
17 CFR 200.309) to update the provisions to reflect existing practice.
The present rule states that fees for copying documents will be
determined by rates set by contract with commercial copiers.

The proposed amendments would revise the rule to reflect existing
practice, which is to apply the duplication fees listed on the Office
of FOIA Services' fee page on the Commission's website. The duplication
fees currently posted on the website reflect the direct costs to the
Commission of producing a copy, whether in paper or electronic format,
taking into account various factors including the salary of the
employee(s) performing the work and the cost of materials. The Office
of FOIA Services does not charge for providing existing electronic
records because such a production does not require processes, such as
copying or scanning, that impose direct costs on the Commission. The
duplication fee posted on the Commission's website is adjusted as
appropriate to reflect current costs.
    The proposed amendments also would codify the existing practice of
charging requesters the direct costs associated with making records
available on electronic storage devices, as reflected on the
Commission's FOIA fee website. Further, the proposed amendments would
allow for providing requesters with one free copy of each record
amended or corrected pursuant to a request for amendment or correction.

C. Proposed Elimination of Certain Provisions

    The proposed amendments would eliminate two Sections of the
existing regulations in their entirety. The proposed amendments also
would eliminate certain other provisions within the existing
regulations. The deleted provisions restate language in the Privacy
Act, and thus do not require elaboration in the Commission's
regulations; have been incorporated into other provisions within the
proposed rule; or are otherwise unnecessary. The proposed amendments
would remove the following:
    Title 17, section 200.305 of the existing rule: This provision,
which provides special procedures for requests for medical records, is
unnecessary as the medical records the Commission typically maintains,
whether about Commission staff or other individuals, are generally
available to those individuals through other means, and the Commission
has never used special procedures for medical records in connection
with Privacy Act requests.
    Title 17, section 200.307(b) of the existing rule: This provision
restates the standards applied in reviewing requests for amendment or
correction of records. These standards are set forth in the Privacy
Act. Therefore, it is unnecessary to restate them in the Commission's
regulations.
    Title 17, section 200.309(a): This provision describes the
standards for extending time to respond to requests. This section uses
language from the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(6)(B)(iii)) rather than the Privacy Act. Title 17, sections
200.304(d)(1), 304(d)(2)(ii), 307(b), and 309(a)(3) of the proposed
rule contain information about extensions of time based on the
requirements of the Privacy Act.
    Title 17, sections 200.309(b), (c), (d), and (e) of the existing
rule: These provisions are unnecessary as they are not contemplated by
the statute, are covered elsewhere in the revised rule, or are obsolete
due to changes in technology affecting how Privacy Act requests are
processed.
    Title 17, section 200.311 of the existing rule: This provision
restates the statutory penalties set forth in the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C.
552a(i)). Accordingly, recitation within Commission regulations is
unnecessary.

D. Proposed Addition of Provisions

    The proposed amendments would add a provision for processing
requests by individuals for an accounting of certain record disclosures
about the requester, to include the date, nature, and purpose of each
disclosure, that the Commission has made available to another person,
organization, or agency (proposed 17 CFR 200.307). While the statute
allows for individuals to request such an accounting (5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3)), the Commission's existing rule has no such provision. The
proposed amendments would also add a provision that formally implements
a 90-day time period for requesters to file administrative appeals
(proposed 17 CFR 200.308). The 90-day period is appropriate because
Privacy Act requests for access to records are also processed as
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') requests and the FOIA sets forth
a 90-day deadline to file an administrative appeal. Because of the
overlap with FOIA, Privacy Act requesters are currently informed they
have 90 days to file an administrative appeal in response to an adverse
decision.

E. Structure of the Proposed Rule

    The structure of the regulations would be revised to read as
follows:
     17 CFR 200.301 (Purpose and scope);
     17 CFR 200.302 (Definitions);
     17 CFR 200.303 (Procedures for making inquiries and
requests for access);
     17 CFR 200.304 (Responses to inquiries and requests for
access);
     17 CFR 200.305 (Requests for amendment or correction of
records);
     17 CFR 200.306 (Review of requests for amendment or
correction);
     17 CFR 200.307 (Requests for an accounting of record
disclosures);
     17 CFR 200.308 (Administrative appeals);
     17 CFR 200.30910 (Fees);
     17 CFR 200.310 (Specific exemptions);
     17 CFR 200.311 (Inspector General exemptions); and
     17 CFR 200.312 [Reserved].

III. General Request for Comments

    We request and encourage any interested person to submit comments
on any aspect of the proposals, other matters that might have an impact
on the proposals, and suggestions for additional changes. We note that
comments are of particular assistance if accompanied by analysis of the
issues addressed in those comments and any data that may support the
analysis. We urge commenters to be as specific as possible.

IV. Economic Analysis

    The Commission is sensitive to the economic effects, including the
costs and benefits that result from its rules. Section 23(a)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') requires the
Commission, in making rules pursuant to any provision of the Exchange
Act, to consider among other matters the impact any such rule would
have on competition and prohibits any rule that would impose a burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Exchange Act.\4\ Further, Section 3(f) of the
Exchange Act requires the Commission, when engaging in rulemaking where
it is required to consider or determine whether an action is necessary
or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the
protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.\5\ As discussed further below, we
preliminarily believe that the economic effects of the proposed
amendments would be limited. Where possible, we have attempted to
quantify the costs, benefits, and effects on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation expected to result from the proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78w(a).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments fall into four categories: (1) revisions to

procedural provisions; (2) revisions to certain fee provisions; (3) the
elimination of certain unnecessary provisions; and (4) the addition of
a new provision for requesting an accounting of record disclosures. We
discuss each of these in turn below.
    First, we are proposing amendments to procedural provisions. Most
of these changes would codify existing practice, including: (1) adding
new methods for submitting Privacy Act inquiries, requests, and
administrative appeals; (2) clarifying the existing procedures for
submitting requests for information or records about oneself; (3)
clarifying certain existing procedures for verification of identity,
including options available for in-person or not in-person verification
and necessary documentation; (4) clarifying existing procedures for
submitting an administrative appeal; (5) codifying the existing
practice of providing requesters 90 days to file an administrative
appeal; and (6) correctly identifying the Commission systems of records
that are exempt under the Privacy Act.\6\ We believe that these changes
would have minimal impact on Privacy Act requesters because they
largely codify existing practices. To the extent the proposed
amendments result in these practices being followed more consistently,
they could benefit the public and improve efficiency by decreasing the
time in which the Commission responds to inquiries, requests, and
appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ One of the systems of records identified in the existing
rule is obsolete. Another system of records had its name changed,
and a new system of records was added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, these amendments may reduce potential confusion among
Privacy Act requesters with regard to certain existing procedures,
which could further benefit the public. In particular, because Privacy
Act requests for access to records are also processed as FOIA requests
and the FOIA sets forth a 90-day deadline to file an administrative
appeal, Privacy Act requesters are currently informed they have 90 days
to file an administrative appeal in response to an adverse decision. We
believe that codifying this existing practice would benefit requesters
by removing any uncertainty as to when appeals must be filed. In
addition, with respect to the provisions on verification of identity,
the amendments also explicitly provide for an alternative electronic
identification option through processes made available on the
Commission's website. By clarifying and supplementing the available
options for verification, these amendments may allow requestors to more
efficiently choose a verification process that is most appropriate for
them. We do not expect the proposed amendments to the procedural
provisions to result in additional costs to any member of the public.
    Second, we are proposing to revise the provision concerning fees
charged for duplication. This includes: (1) determining duplication
fees based on the direct cost to the Commission as set forth on the
FOIA fee page on the Commission's website; (2) codifying the existing
practice of charging requesters the direct costs associated with making
records available on electronic storage devices; and (3) clarifying
that requesters will receive one free copy of each record corrected or
amended pursuant to a request for amendment.
    The proposed changes to the fee procedures would benefit Privacy
Act requesters by removing potential confusion about the cost of
obtaining records and the cost of making records available on
electronic storage devices. We do not anticipate that any of the
proposed changes to the fee procedures would impose significant new
costs on Privacy Act requesters or have any other economic impact.
    Prior to July 2018, duplication costs for FOIA and Privacy Act
requesters were 24 cents per page as set by contract with a commercial
copier. Since that time, duplication costs have been set at 15 cents
per page, which reflects the direct cost to the Commission. Duplication
fees may change in the future, to the extent that the Commission's
direct costs for duplicating materials increase or decrease.
    The table below shows the number of Privacy Act requests processed
by the Commission during fiscal years 2015 through 2022 and that,
during those years, the Commission collected no fees for processing
requests received under the Privacy Act.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fees collected
               Fiscal year                   Requests     for processing
                                             processed       requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015....................................             134          $00.00
2016....................................             155           00.00
2017....................................              95           00.00
2018....................................             283           00.00
2019....................................             162           00.00
2020....................................             159           00.00
2021....................................             255           00.00
2022....................................             261           00.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From fiscal years 2015 through 2022 requesters were not charged
fees because either no records were provided or the requester was
provided with existing electronic records, for which a fee is not
charged. There were no requests processed that required production of
hard copy records, the scanning of hard copies, or production in
another media, such as an electronic storage device, and, consequently,
no requests that would have imposed direct costs on the Commission.
    Given the lack of chargeable duplication fees in recent years, the
Commission anticipates that the proposed changes to duplication fees
(including fees for producing materials in electronic format) would not
result in significant additional costs for requesters. Further, these
proposed changes largely codify existing practices regarding fees for
duplication and production on other types of media and, like the
current regulations, do not charge fees for searching or retrieving
records.
    The proposed change that clarifies that requesters will receive one
free copy of each record corrected or amended pursuant to a request for
amendment also codifies an existing practice, and would therefore not
impose any additional burden on requesters.
    Third, the Commission is proposing to eliminate certain provisions
in its Privacy Act regulations. The Commission does not anticipate that
the removal of 17 CFR 200.305 will have any meaningful economic
effects. The provision provides special procedures for requests for
medical records, but the medical records the Commission typically
maintains, whether about Commission staff or other individuals, are
generally available to those individuals through other means, and the
Commission has never used special procedures for medical records in
connection with Privacy Act requests. The Commission does not expect
the proposed elimination of 17 CFR 200.307(b) and 200.311 to result in
any economic effects because they restate language in the Privacy Act.
    There would also be minimal economic effects from the proposed
elimination of 17 CFR 200.309(a), which describes the standards for
extending time to respond to requests, because other provisions in the
proposed rule (17 CFR 200.304(d), 200.306(b), and 200.307(d)) address
the procedures and reasons for extending the time to respond to
inquiries and requests. Similarly, the Commission does not expect the
proposed elimination of 17 CFR 200.309(c) and 200.309(d) to result in
meaningful economic effects. These provisions require giving notice to
a requester when delay will result from the fact that the subject
records are in

use by a member of the Commission or its staff and when records are
lost. The proposed rule would require the Office of FOIA Services to
notify requesters of reasons for delay and of the fact that a record
does not exist, so the specific information in 17 CFR 200.309(c) and
200.309(d) is duplicative.
    The proposed elimination of 17 CFR 200.309(b) would remove the
concept of an ``effective date of action'' as it relates to mailing
acknowledgements or responses by the Commission. This proposed
amendment could increase the Commission's flexibility in acknowledging
or responding to requests while also potentially increasing uncertainty
for requesters, but these effects would only be realized to the extent
that requesters and the Commission rely on mail to make and respond to
requests, and the Commission expects that use of mail will be
infrequent going forward because most communications occur by email.
    The proposed elimination of 17 CFR 200.309(e)(1), which prohibits
oral requests, would have no substantive effect, because the existing
regulations, like the proposed amendments, elsewhere require Privacy
Act requests to be made in writing. The elimination of 17 CFR
200.309(e)(2), which states that a misdirected request will be deemed
received only once it is received by a Privacy Act Officer and that an
appeal will not be considered unless the request was in fact received
by a Privacy Act Officer, would remove an unnecessary provision because
the proposed rules in 17 CFR 200.303(a) and 200.305(a) have the same
effect by requiring that requesters use the methods described in the
proposed rules to submit a Privacy Act inquiry or request.
    Finally, the Commission is proposing to add a provision outlining
the procedure for making requests for an accounting of record
disclosures. The existing rules do not provide for such a procedure,
although the public's right to make such a request is contemplated by
the statute. 5 U.S.C.552a(c)(3). This provision would reduce the
potential confusion among Privacy Act requesters about the exact
procedure that they would have to follow with regard to this type of
request, and therefore this provision would generally benefit the
public. Furthermore, by providing clarity about the procedure that
would have to be followed when requesting an accounting of record
disclosure, the provision would likely reduce the cost to the public of
submitting this type of request.
    The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments
would not have any significant impact on competition or capital
formation. The proposed amendments may result in a slight improvement
in operational efficiency, to the extent that they decrease the time in
which the Commission responds to inquiries, requests, and appeals. The
Commission requests comment on all aspects of the benefits and costs of
the proposal, including any anticipated impacts on efficiency,
competition, or capital formation.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the
Commission to undertake an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of
the effect of the proposed rule amendments on small entities unless the
Commission certifies that the proposal, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, most of the proposed changes are procedural. Many
of the changes codify existing practices and are therefore unlikely to
have any economic impact on requesters. With respect to the changes to
the fee schedule, under the Privacy Act, agencies may recover only the
cost of duplicating the records processed for requesters. These fees
are typically nominal, and the proposed changes to the fee regulations
codify existing practice and thus would not have a significant economic
impact on a Privacy Act requester. Fees for duplication are identified
on the Commission's web page at https://www.sec.gov/foia/feesche.htm.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
the Commission certifies that the proposed amendments to the Privacy
Act regulations, if adopted, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission
requests comment regarding the appropriateness of its certification.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule would not impose any new ``collection of
information'' requirement as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; nor would it create any new
filing, reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure reporting requirements.
Accordingly, we are not submitting the proposed rule to the Office of
Management and Budget for review under the PRA.\7\ We request comment
on whether our conclusion that there are no new collections of
information is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, a rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or
is likely to result in: (i) an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease); (ii)
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries; or (iii) significant adverse effect on competition,
investment, or innovation.\8\ We request comment on the potential
impact of the proposed rule on the economy on an annual basis, any
potential increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual
industries, and any potential effect on competition, investment, or
innovation. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and
other factual support for their view to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in
various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C., and as a note to 5 U.S.C.
601).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Authority and Text of Proposed Rule Amendments

    The amendments contained herein are being proposed under the
authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(f), 552a(j), 552a(k); and 15
U.S.C. 78d-1 and 78w(a).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure; Privacy Act.

Text of Proposed Amendments

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, and 557; 11 U.S.C. 901 and
1109(a); 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77o, 77q, 77s, 77u,
77z-3, 77ggg(a), 77hhh, 77sss, 77uuu, 78b, 78c(b), 78d, 78d-1, 78d-
2, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78h, 78i, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78o-4,
78q, 78q-1, 78w, 78t-1, 78u, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 78eee, 80a-8, 80a-
20, 80a-24, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80a-41, 80a-44(a), 80a-44(b), 80b-3,
80b-4, 80b-5, 80b-9, 80b-10(a), 80b-11, 7202, and 7211 et seq.; 29
U.S.C. 794; 44 U.S.C. 3506 and 3507; Reorganization Plan No. 10 of
1950 (15 U.S.C. 78d nt); sec.

8G, Pub. L. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101 (5 U.S.C. App.); sec. 913, Pub. L.
111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1827; sec. 3(a), Pub. L. 114-185, 130 Stat.
538; E.O. 11222, 30 FR 6469, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 36; E.O.
12356, 47 FR 14874, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; E.O. 12600, 52 FR
23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235; Information Security Oversight
Office Directive No. 1, 47 FR 27836; and 5 CFR 735.104 and 5 CFR
parts 2634 and 2635, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise subpart H to read as follows:

Subpart H--Regulations Pertaining to the Privacy of Individuals and
Systems of Records Maintained by the Commission

Sec.
200.301 Purpose and scope.
200.302 Definitions.
200.303 Procedures for making inquiries and requests for access.
200.304 Responses to inquiries and requests for access.
200.305 Requests for amendment or correction of records.
200.306 Review of requests for amendment or correction.
200.307 Requests for an accounting of record disclosures.
200.308 Administrative appeals.
200.309 Fees.
200.310 Specific exemptions.
200.311 Inspector General exemptions.
200.312 [Reserved]

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(f), unless otherwise noted.

    Section 200.310 is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k).
    Section 200.311 is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) and 5
U.S.C. 552a(k).

Sec.  200.301   Purpose and scope.

    (a) This subpart contains the rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L.
93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a). These rules are applicable to all records in
systems of records maintained by the Commission. They set forth the
procedures by which individuals may make an inquiry regarding or
request access to records about themselves, request an amendment or
correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures
of those records by the Commission.
    (b) This subpart also lists the Commission systems of records that
are exempt from some of the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
These exemptions are authorized under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)
and (k).

Sec.  200.302   Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions contained in 5 U.S.C. 552a(a), the
following definitions apply in this subpart:
    Commission means the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    Inquiry means a request described in Privacy Act section (f)(1).
    Privacy Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C.
552a).
    Request for access to a record means a request made under Privacy
Act section (d)(1).
    Request for amendment or correction of a record means a request
made under Privacy Act section (d)(2).
    Request for an accounting means a request made under Privacy Act
section (c)(3).
    Requester means an individual who makes an inquiry, a request for
access, a request for amendment or correction, or a request for an
accounting.

Sec.  200.303   Procedures for making inquiries and requests for
access.

    Requesters seeking to know if a specific system of records
maintained by the Commission contains a record pertaining to them may
submit an inquiry to the Commission. Requesters may also request access
to records pertaining to them in a system of records maintained by the
Commission.
    (a) How to make an inquiry or request for access. An inquiry or
request for access must be in writing and may be submitted by email
([email protected]) or online at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs. A requester may alternatively
submit an inquiry or request for access by mail to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 or other mailing address or facsimile number
published on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html. Inquiries and requests for access that are submitted
by mail should include the words ``PRIVACY ACT REQUEST'' in capital
letters at the top of the letter and on the face of the envelope.
    (b) Information to be included in an inquiry or request for access.
Each inquiry or request for access must include information that will
assist the Commission in identifying those records the requester is
seeking information about or access to. The following information, as
relevant, should be submitted with the request: name of the individual
whose record is sought; identifying data that will help locate the
record (e.g., maiden name and period or place of employment); and the
requester's name, address, telephone number, and email address. Where
practicable, the requester should identify the system of records that
is the subject of the inquiry or request for access by reference to the
Commission's systems of records notices, which are published in the
Federal Register. The Commission's systems of records notices can also
be found on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/oit/system-records-notices. If additional information is required before a request
can be processed, the requester will be so advised.
    (c) Verification of identity. A requester making an inquiry or
requesting access to a record must verify his or her identity before
information is given or access is granted unless the information is
required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552.
    (1) In-person verification. A requester may appear at any of the
Commission offices, which are listed on the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/divisions.shtml, and furnish documentation to
establish his or her identity. Such documentation might include a valid
driver's license, passport, birth certificate, employee or military
identification card, or Medicare card. Sufficiency of the documentation
in verifying identity will be determined by the Commission staff member
reviewing such documentation.
    (2) Not in-person verification. A requester who does not appear in
person must verify his or her identity using one of the following
methods:
    (i) A requester may use electronic identity proofing and
authentication processes as made available through the Commission's
website; or
    (ii) A requester may submit a copy of documentation to establish
the requester's identity (examples of such documentation are noted in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section).
    (3) Submission of signed statement. For all verification methods, a
requester must also submit a statement attesting to the requester's
identity and a statement that the requester understands that a knowing
and willful request for or acquisition of a record pertaining to an
individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a
$5,000 fine. Sample statements and the requirements for completing them
are available through the Commission's website.
    (4) Additional procedures for verifying identity. When it appears
appropriate, the Commission's Office of FOIA Services may make such
other arrangements for the verification of identity as are reasonable
under the circumstances and appear to be effective to prevent
unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, individual records.

Sec.  200.304   Responses to inquiries and requests for access.

    (a) Initial review. Inquiries and requests for access will be
referred to the Commission's Office of FOIA Services which will make
the initial determination as to whether the inquiry or request for
access will be granted.
    (b) Grant of inquiry or request for access. If it is determined
that an inquiry or request for access will be granted, the requester
will be advised in writing. When a request for access is granted, in
full or in part, a requester may elect to receive a copy of the
requested record electronically, by mail, or in person, and the Office
of FOIA Services will comply with that election to the extent
practicable.
    (c) Denial of an inquiry or request for access. If it is determined
that no response will be given to an inquiry or that a request for
access will not be granted, the requester will be notified of that fact
in writing and given the reasons for the denial. The requester also
will be advised of his or her right to seek review by the Office of the
General Counsel of the initial decision in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Sec.  200.308.
    (d) Time for acting on inquiries and requests for access. (1)
Responses to inquiries. The Office of FOIA Services will endeavor to
inform a requester making an inquiry as to whether the named system of
records contains a record pertaining to him or her within 10 days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) of receipt of such
a request. Whenever a response to an inquiry cannot be made within the
10 days, the Office of FOIA Services will inform the requester of the
reasons for the delay and the date by which a response may be
anticipated.
    (2) Acknowledgement of and responses to requests for access. (i)
Except where the requester appears in person, the Office of FOIA
Services will endeavor to acknowledge, in writing, receipt of a request
for access within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal
holidays) of receipt of such a request.
    (ii) The Office of FOIA Services will endeavor to respond to a
request for access to a record pertaining to a requester within 30 days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) after the receipt
of the request. If, for good cause shown, a longer period of time is
required, the Office of FOIA Services will inform the requester in
writing of the reasons for the delay, and indicate when access is
expected to be granted or denied.
    (3) Appearance in person. When a requester appears in person at the
Commission to make a request for access and the requester provides the
required information and verification of identity, the Office of FOIA
Services' staff, if practicable, will indicate whether it is likely
that the requester will be given access to the records and, if so, when
and under what circumstances such access will be given.
    (e) Exclusion for certain records. Nothing contained in these rules
allows a requester to obtain access to any records or information
compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.

 Sec.  200.305  Requests for amendment or correction of records.

    (a) How to a make request for amendment or correction. A written
request for amendment or correction of records may be submitted by
email ([email protected]) or online at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs. A requester may alternatively
submit a request for amendment or correction by mail to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 or other mailing address or facsimile number
published on the Commission's website at  https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html. Requests that are submitted by mail should include
the words ``PRIVACY ACT REQUEST'' in capital letters at the top of the
letter and on the face of the envelope.
    (1) Information to be included in requests for amendment or
correction. Each request for amendment or correction must reasonably
describe the record sought to be amended or corrected. Such description
should include, for example, relevant names, dates, and subject matter
to permit the record to be located among the records maintained by the
Commission. The requester will be advised promptly if the record cannot
be located on the basis of the description given and if further
identifying information is necessary before the request can be
processed. Verification of the requester's identity as set forth in
Sec.  200.303(c) will also be required before an amendment or
correction is undertaken.
    (2) Basis for amendment or correction. A requester seeking an
amendment or correction to a record must specify the substance of the
amendment or correction and set forth facts and provide such materials
that would support the contention that the record as maintained by the
Commission is not accurate, timely, or complete or, where a request
seeks deletion of information, that the record is not necessary and
relevant to accomplish a statutory purpose of the Commission as
authorized by law or by Executive Order of the President.
    (b) Acknowledgement of requests for amendment or correction.
Receipt of a request for amendment or correction will be acknowledged
in writing within 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal
holidays) after such request has been received. When a request for
amendment or correction is made in person, the requester will be given
a written acknowledgement when the request is presented. The
acknowledgement will describe the request received and indicate when it
is anticipated that action will be taken on the request.

Sec.  200.306   Review of requests for amendment or correction.

    (a) Initial review. Requests for amendment or correction to records
pertaining to that individual will be referred to the Commission's
Office of FOIA Services for an initial determination.
    (b) Time for acting on requests. Initial review of a request for
amendment or correction will be completed promptly and the Office of
FOIA Services will endeavor to respond to a request within 30 days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) from the date the
request was received, unless circumstances preclude completion of
review within that time. If the anticipated completion date indicated
in the acknowledgement cannot be met, the requester will be advised in
writing of the delay and the reasons for the delay, and also advised
when action is expected to be completed.
    (c) Grant of requests for amendment or correction. If a request for
amendment or correction is granted in whole or in part, the Office of
FOIA Services will:
    (1) Advise the requester in writing of the extent to which it has
been granted;
    (2) Amend or correct the record accordingly; and
    (3) Where an accounting of disclosures of the record has been kept
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(c), advise all previous recipients of the
record of the fact that the record has been amended or corrected and
the substance of the amendment or correction.
    (d) Denial of requests for amendment or correction. If the request
for amendment or correction is denied in whole or in part, the Office
of FOIA Services will:
    (1) Promptly advise the requester in writing of the extent to which
the request has been denied;

    (2) State the reasons for the denial of the request;
    (3) Describe the procedures to appeal the denial of the request for
amendment or correction, including the name and address of the person
to whom the appeal is to be addressed; and
    (4) Inform the requester that the Office of FOIA Services will
provide information and assistance to the individual in perfecting an
appeal of the initial decision.

Sec.  200.307  Requests for an accounting of record disclosures.

    (a) How made and addressed. Except where accountings of disclosures
are not required to be kept or provided (as stated in paragraph (e) of
this section), requesters may ask the Commission to provide an
accounting of a disclosure of a record about the requester that the
Commission has made to another person, organization, or agency. The
request for an accounting should identify each particular record in
question and must be made in writing. The request may be submitted by
email ([email protected]) or online at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs. A requester may alternatively
submit a request for an accounting by mail to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 or other mailing address or facsimile number
published on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html. Requests for accounting that are submitted by mail
should include the words ``PRIVACY ACT REQUEST'' in capital letters at
the top of the letter and on the face of the envelope.
    (b) Verification of identity. Verification of the requester's
identity as set forth in section 202.303(c) will be required before an
accounting is given.
    (c) Acknowledgement of requests for an accounting of record
disclosures. The Office of FOIA Services will endeavor to acknowledge,
in writing, receipt of a request for an accounting of record
disclosures within 10 days of receipt of such a request (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays). When a request for an
accounting of record disclosures is made in person, the requester will
be given a written acknowledgement when the request is presented. The
acknowledgement will describe the request received and indicate when it
is anticipated that action will be taken on the request.
    (d) Time for acting on requests. The Office of FOIA Services will
endeavor to respond to a request for an accounting of record
disclosures within 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal
holidays) from the date the request was received, unless the requester
is notified in writing within the 30-day period that, for good cause
shown, a longer period of time is required. In such cases, the
requester will be informed in writing of the reasons for the delay and
an indication will be given as to when it is anticipated that an
accounting may be granted or denied.
    (e) Grant of request of accounting. If it is determined that a
request for an accounting will be granted, the requester will be
advised in writing. When a request for access is granted, in full or in
part, the information will be provided electronically, by mail, or in
person at the requester's election.
    (f) Denial of a request for accounting. If it is determined that
the request will not be granted, the requester will be notified of that
fact in writing and given the reasons for the denial. The requester
also will be advised of his or her right to seek review by the Office
of the General Counsel of the initial decision in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Sec.  200.308.
    (g) Where accountings of record disclosures are not required. The
Commission is not required to provide accountings of disclosures to
requesters where they relate to:
    (1) Disclosures made to officers and employees within the
Commission and disclosures made under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552;
    (2) Disclosures made to law enforcement agencies for authorized law
enforcement activities in response to written requests from those law
enforcement agencies specifying the law enforcement activities for
which disclosures are sought; or
    (3) Disclosures made from law enforcement systems of records that
have been exempted from accounting requirements.

Sec.  200.308   Administrative appeals.

    (a) Administrative review. A requester who has been notified
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  200.304(c), 200.306(d), or 200.307(d) that his
or her inquiry or request has been denied in whole or in part, or who
has received no response to a request for access or to amend within 30
days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays) after his or
her request was received by the Office of the FOIA Services, may appeal
to the Office of the General Counsel the adverse determination.
    (1) Appeals must be received within 90 calendar days of the date of
the written denial of an inquiry or request and must be received no
later than 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on the 90th day.
    (2) The appeal should be in writing and should provide the assigned
request number, a copy of the original request, and the adverse
determination. The appeal should also explain why the requester
contends any adverse determination was in error. The requester may
state such facts and cite such legal or other authorities as the
requester may consider appropriate in support of the appeal. If only a
portion of the adverse determination is appealed, the requester should
specify which part is being appealed.
    (3) The appeal may be submitted by email ([email protected]) or online
at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs. A requester may alternatively submit an appeal by
mail to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA
Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or other mailing
address or facsimile number published on the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html.
    (4) The Office of the General Counsel will endeavor to make a
determination with respect to an appeal within 30 days after the
receipt of such appeal (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal
holidays) unless, for good cause shown, the Office of the General
Counsel extends that period. If such an extension is made, the
individual who is appealing will be advised in writing of the
extension, the reasons therefor, and the anticipated date when the
appeal will be decided.
    (5) If the Office of the General Counsel concludes that an inquiry
or request for access, amendment or correction, or an accounting should
be granted, it will issue a decision granting the inquiry or request
and instructing the Office of FOIA Services to comply with Sec. Sec.
200.304(b), 200.306(c), or 200.307(c), as applicable.
    (6) If the Office of the General Counsel affirms the initial
decision denying an inquiry or request for access or an accounting, it
will issue a decision denying the inquiry or request and advising the
requester of:
    (i) The reasons for the denial; and
    (ii) The requester's right to obtain judicial review of the
decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(B) or (g)(1)(D), as
applicable.
    (7) If the Office of the General Counsel determines that the
decision of the Office of FOIA Services denying a request for amendment
or correction should be upheld, it will issue a decision denying the
request and the individual will be advised of:

    (i) The decision refusing to amend or correct the record and the
reasons therefor;
    (ii) The requester's right to file a concise statement setting
forth his or her disagreement with the decision not to amend or correct
the record;
    (iii) The procedures for filing such a statement of disagreement;
    (iv) The fact that any such statement of disagreement will be made
available to anyone to whom the record is disclosed, together with, if
the Office of the General Counsel deems it appropriate, a brief
statement setting forth the Office of the General Counsel's reasons for
refusing to amend or correct;
    (v) The fact that prior recipients of the record in issue will be
provided with the statement of disagreement and the Office of the
General Counsel's statement, if any, to the extent that an accounting
of such disclosures has been maintained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(c);
and
    (vi) The requester's right to seek judicial review of the Office of
the General Counsel's refusal to amend or correct, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552a(g)(1)(A).
    (8) In appropriate cases the Office of the General Counsel may, in
its sole discretion, refer matters requiring administrative review of
initial decisions to the Commission for determination and the issuance,
where indicated, of decisions.
    (b) Statements of disagreement. As noted in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of
this section, a requester may file a statement setting forth his or her
disagreement with the Office of the General Counsel's denial of the
request for amendment or correction.
    (1) Such statement of disagreement may be submitted by email
([email protected]) or online at the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/forms/request_public_docs. A requester who is not able to
submit a statement of disagreement by email or online may submit a
request by mail to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or other mailing
address or facsimile number published on the Commission's website at
https://www.sec.gov/oso/help/foia-contact.html. A requester must submit
a statement of disagreement within 30 days after receipt of the Office
of the General Counsel's decision denying the request for amendment or
correction. For good cause shown this period can be extended for a
reasonable time.
    (2) Statements of disagreement should be concise and must clearly
identify each part of any record that is disputed and state the basis
for the requester's disagreement. The Office of the General Counsel
will return unduly lengthy or irrelevant materials to the individual
for appropriate revisions before they become a permanent part of the
requester's record. Statements of disagreement will be placed in the
system of records in which the disputed record is maintained. The
disputed record will be marked to indicate that a statement of
disagreement has been filed and where in the system of records it may
be found.
    (3) If a requester has filed a statement of disagreement, the
Office of FOIA Services will append a copy of it to the disputed record
whenever the record is disclosed and may also append a concise
statement of its reason(s) for denying the request for amendment or
correction.
    (4) In appropriate cases, the Office of the General Counsel may, in
its sole discretion, refer matters concerning statements of
disagreement to the Commission for disposition.

Sec.  200.309   Fees.

    (a) The only fee to be charged to a requester under this part is
for the duplication of records to be disclosed to the requester. No fee
will be charged or collected for: search, retrieval, or review of
records; or duplication at the initiative of the Commission without a
request from the requester. Fees for duplication will be charged at
rates set forth on the FOIA web page of the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov. Fees for duplication include any costs incurred in making
records available on electronic storage devices.
    (b) With regard to requests for amendment or correction, the
Commission will provide the requester one copy of each record corrected
or amended pursuant to his or her request without charge as evidence of
the correction or amendment.
    (c) Whenever the Office of FOIA Services determines that good cause
exists to grant a request for reduction or waiver of fees for
duplication costs, it may reduce or waive any such fees.

Sec.  200.310   Specific exemptions.

    (a) Pursuant to, and limited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the following
systems of records maintained by the Commission are exempt from 5
U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I),
and (f), and Sec. Sec.  200.303, 200.305, and 200.307, insofar as they
contain investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes:
    (1) Enforcement Files;
    (2) Office of the General Counsel Working Files;
    (3) Office of the Chief Accountant Working Files;
    (4) Correspondence Response System;
    (5) Tips, Complaints, and Referrals (TCR) Records; and
    (6) SEC Security in the Workplace Incident Records.
    (b) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the systems of records
containing the Commission's Disciplinary and Adverse Actions, Employee
Conduct, and Labor Relations Files are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3),
(d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f), and Sec. Sec.
200.303 through 200.309, insofar as they contain investigatory material
compiled to determine an individual's suitability, eligibility, and
qualifications for Federal civilian employment or access to classified
information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such
material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished
information to the Government under an express promise that the
identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to
September 27, 1975, under an implied promise that the identity of the
source would be held in confidence.

Sec.  200.311  Inspector General exemptions.

    (a) Pursuant to, and limited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the system of
records maintained by the Office of Inspector General of the Commission
that contains investigative files is exempt from the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552a, except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through
(F), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(9), (e)(10), and (e)(11), and (i), and
Sec. Sec.  200.303 through 200.309, insofar as the system contains
information pertaining to criminal law enforcement investigations.
    (b) Pursuant to, and limited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the system of
records maintained by the Office of Inspector General of the Commission
that contains investigative files is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3),
(d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f) and Sec. Sec.
200.303 through 200.309, insofar as it contains investigatory materials
compiled for law enforcement purposes.

Sec.  200.312  [Reserved]

    By the Commission.

    Dated: February 14, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-03467 Filed 2-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P