[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63883-63887]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24889]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0727, FRL-9901-92-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Revision to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM[bdi2].[bdi5] National
Ambient Air Quality Standards; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Utah to
demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on
July 18, 1997 and on October 17, 2006. The CAA requires that each
state, after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs
to ensure that they meet infrastructure requirements. The State of Utah
provided infrastructure SIP submissions on April 17, 2008 for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and September 21, 2010 for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is approving portions of SIP
revisions submitted by the State of Utah on March 14, 2012. This
submission revises Utah's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program to incorporate the required elements of the 2008
PM2.5 New Source Review (NSR) Implementation Rule and the
2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No.EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0727. All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
    (iii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.
    (v) The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    (vi) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate
matter).
    (vii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (viii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are provided in section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific
infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The
elements that are the subject of this action are described in detail in
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) of May 23, 2013 (78 FR 30830).
    In our NPR, we proposed to act on submissions from the State of
Utah to address infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The NPR proposed approval of the submissions
with respect to the

following infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS: CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) with
respect to minor NSR requirements, (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with respect
to the requirements of sections 121 and 127 of the Act, (K), (L), and
(M). The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the NPR.
    For reasons explained in the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve the
submissions for infrastructure elements (C) and (J) with respect to PSD
requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Concurrently, EPA proposed to approve revisions to the Utah SIP
submitted by the State on March 14, 2012 which incorporate the
requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and
the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically, approval of the
text of 40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs (b)(14)(i), (ii), and (iii);
(b)(15)(i) and (ii); (b)(23)(i); (b)(50); and, paragraph (c) as they
existed on July 1, 2011. EPA is taking no action at this time on
infrastructure element (D) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA also proposed to correct, under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA,
an erroneous statement made in a previous action on Utah's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained in
more detail in our proposal, in EPA's action on the 1997 ozone
infrastructure submittal, EPA erroneously stated that the CAA made no
requirements for state judicial review of PSD permits.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Three trade associations opposed our proposed disapproval
of Utah's infrastructure SIP with respect to element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
The commenters acknowledge that Utah's state law governing the Utah Air
Quality Board (Board) was amended by Senate Bill 21 in 2011 to remove
the provision in Utah Code section 19-2-203 requiring members of the
Board to adequately disclose potential conflicts of interest. However,
the commenters cite another provision, added in Senate Bill 21 to Utah
Code section 19-1-201, requiring the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (Department) to promulgate rules regarding conflict of interest
procedures for the Board. The commenters therefore disagree with our
statement that Utah Code section 19-2-203 does not address disclosure
of potential conflicts of interest by members of the Board, and our
statement that the 2008 and 2010 infrastructure submittals no longer
reflect state law. The commenters cite conflict of interest rules
promulgated by the Department in Utah Administrative Code (UAC)
sections R305-9-101 to -106 and note that the Director is a member of
the Board and is thus subject to these rules. As a result, the
commenters also take exception to our statement that Utah Code section
19-2-203 does not address disclosure of conflicts of interest by the
Director, and state that they have ``no idea'' why EPA did not take the
rules promulgated in UAC sections R305-9-101 to -106 into account in
our proposal. The commenters conclude, based on the revisions to Utah
Code section 19-1-203 and the rules in Utah Administrative Code section
R305-9, that the infrastructure SIP should be approved for CAA element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. First, we stated a
general principle in our proposed action: section 128 must be satisfied
through federally enforceable provisions that are approved into the
SIP. See 78 FR at 52842 n.5 (citing 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013)). The
language of section 128 compels this. It mandates that each SIP
``contain requirements'' meeting the terms of subsections 128(a)(1) and
(a)(2). In turn, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires section 128 to be
satisfied. The commenters do not dispute any of this.
    EPA correctly stated that the infrastructure SIP submittals no
longer reflect state law. As stated in our proposal, the submittals
were made on April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010, for the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. Also
stated in our proposal, S.B. 21 was enacted in 2011, after the
submittals were made. In other words, state law changed after the
submittals were made.
    EPA also correctly stated that revised Utah Code section 19-2-203
does not address disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. To the
extent that EPA should have considered the revisions to Utah Code
section 19-1-201 (which were not referenced in the infrastructure SIP
submittals nor separately submitted for inclusion in the SIP), a
general requirement such as that in section 19-1-203 to promulgate
conflict of interest rules nonetheless does not address how potential
conflicts of interest will be disclosed. Furthermore, as noted in our
proposed action, the Utah SIP contains only a reference to Utah Code
section 19-2-104. See 78 FR at 52842 n.5. Thus, even to the extent that
a general provision requiring promulgation of conflict of interest
rules can be said to ``address'' the specific disclosure requirements
in CAA section 128(a)(2), Utah Code section 19-1-201 cannot be used for
that purpose, as it is not approved into the SIP.
    We turn to the rules in UAC sections R305-9-101 to -106 cited by
the commenters. These rules have not been submitted to EPA by the State
of Utah for inclusion in the SIP. If and when they and any other
provisions are submitted by the State, EPA will evaluate them for
compliance with section 128 and act accordingly. Until such provisions
are approved into the SIP, they cannot be relied on to satisfy the
requirements of section 128 for purposes of an infrastructure SIP
submission. Thus, it was not necessary for EPA to assess these
unsubmitted provisions (which also were not cited in the infrastructure
SIP submittals) in proposing disapproval of Utah's infrastructure SIP
submissions for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    Aside from the requirement that provisions to meet section 128 must
be approved into the SIP, the commenters do not explain how the new
rules in UAC sections R305-9-101 to -106 would meet the requirements
for section 128(a)(2) when, for example, the Director, acting alone and
not as a member of the Board, approves a permit. As explained in our
notice--and again undisputed by the commenters--the Board no longer has
authority to approve permits that the State issues under the Act. By
their own terms, the disclosure rules promulgated by the Department
apply only to ``matters before the Board.'' See UAC R305-9-104, -105.
Because the Board no longer has authority to approve permits, the
disclosure rules do not apply to permit actions. In those actions, the
Director acts alone and not as a member of the Board. The rules on
their face thus do not appear to apply to the Director's decisions on
permits or to satisfy the requirements of section 128(a)(2) as applied
to the Director.
    As mentioned above, when the State does submit provisions to meet
the requirements of section 128, we will act on them. However, the
comment provides no basis for us to change our proposed disapproval of
the Utah infrastructure SIPs for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment: One commenter questioned our approval of Utah's SIP as to
the October 20, 2010 major source baseline date for the
PM2.5 increments. The commenter contends that the court
decision in NRDC v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), requires that
EPA treat PM2.5 in the same manner as PM10 with
respect to establishing baseline dates. The commenter contends that,
because the court held that the statutory definition of PM10
includes PM2.5, EPA must interpret CAA sections 166(f) and

169(4) as applying the statutory major source baseline date of January
6, 1975, to the regulation of PM2.5 increments in the same
manner that it applies to the regulation of PM10.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's contention, and
is approving this element of the Utah SIP because it is consistent with
applicable EPA regulations implementing the CAA. EPA's regulations are
not altered by the court decision cited by the commenter. As discussed
in the proposal, the court in NRDC v. EPA addressed whether EPA acted
appropriately in establishing SIP requirements in the 2007 and 2008
PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rules via only subpart 1 of Part
D, title I, of the CAA, which establishes plan requirements for
nonattainment areas in general, instead of subpart 4 of Part D, which
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment
areas. The court concluded that because the Act defines the term
PM10 to include PM2.5, the requirements of
subpart 4 that pertain to PM10 nonattainment areas also
apply to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. As subpart 4 pertains
exclusively to particulate matter nonattainment areas, the court's
decision does not address the part C PSD program requirements for
PM2.5, which apply to attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    EPA adopted the PM2.5 increments and the associated
baseline dates in a 2010 rule that was not before the court in NRDC v.
EPA. The D.C. Circuit issued a separate decision on January 22, 2013,
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, that vacated the SILs and SMC for
PM2.5 that were also promulgated by EPA in the 2010 rule.
Because no party raised the issue in that case, the January 2013
decision did not address any of the PM2.5 increment
provisions (including the baseline dates) adopted in that rule.
    The PM2.5 increments and baseline dates promulgated in
the 2010 rule thus remain in effect and are unchanged by recent court
decisions. EPA established the PM2.5 increments as
additional increments under section 166(a) of the CAA rather than
substitute increments under section 166(f). See 75 FR 64864, 64871-2
(Oct. 20, 2010). A complete discussion of how the rule implements the
requirements of the CAA is contained in the preamble to the 2010 rule.
An opportunity to raise concerns with EPA's decision to set the
PM2.5 major source baseline date in 2010 was available
during the comment period on the 2010 rulemaking and court challenge
that produced the January 2013 decision. EPA may not rewrite those
rules in the context of this action, but rather EPA is bound to apply
them in their present form to the Utah SIP submission.
    The 2010 rule amended EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166, which
establishes the minimum requirements that a state must meet in order to
obtain EPA approval of the PSD program elements of a state
implementation plan. Section 51.166(b) specifies that ``[a]ll state
plans shall use the following definitions for the purposes of this
section.'' Within this provision, section 51.166(b)(14)(i) establishes
separate and distinct major source baseline dates for PM10
and PM2.5. Furthermore, the definition of minor source
baseline date in section 51.166(b)(14)(ii) contains separate and
distinct trigger dates for PM10 and PM2.5. Utah's
plan is approvable because it uses these definitions and thus meets the
criteria EPA has established by rule as sufficient to satisfy the
relevant requirements of title I, Part C of the CAA. The Utah plan
incorporates by reference the definitions of major source baseline date
and minor source baseline date in section 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14), which
are the same as those in section 51.166(b)(14).

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Utah's April 17, 2008 and March 14, 2012
submissions with respect to the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD requirements,
(D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD requirements, (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).
    EPA disapproves Utah's submissions with respect to the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    We are approving the following portions of the State's March 14,
2012 submission to address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation
Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically we
approve the adoption of the text of 40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs
(b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii); (b)(15)(i),(ii); (b)(23)(i); (b)(50) and
paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 2011.
    EPA is taking no action on infrastructure elements (D)(i)(I),
interstate transport of pollutants which contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state,
and (D)(i)(II), with respect to visibility requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as EPA is acting separately on these elements.
Finally, EPA is correcting an erroneous statement made in a previous
action regarding requirements for state judicial review of PSD permits.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law as meeting
Federal requirements and disapproves other state law as not meeting
Federal requirements; it does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country

located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 24, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart TT--Utah

0
2. Section 52.2346 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2346  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (d) On March 14, 2012 the State of Utah submitted revisions to the
State Implementation Plan that incorporated the required elements of
the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule. The following provisions are approved
into the State Implementation Plan.
    (1) Major source baseline date means:
    (i) In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, January 6,
1975;
    (ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
    (iii) In the case of PM2.5, October 20, 2010.
    (2) Minor source baseline date means the earliest date after the
trigger date on which a major stationary source or a major modification
subject to 40 CFR 52.21 or to regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR
51.166 submits a complete application under the relevant regulations.
The trigger date is:
    (i) In the case of PM10 and sulfur dioxide, August 7,
1977;
    (ii) In the case of nitrogen dioxide, February 8, 1988; and
    (iii) In the case of PM2.5, October 20, 2011.
    (3) The baseline date is established for each pollutant for which
increments or other equivalent measures have been established if:
    (i) The area in which the proposed source or modification would
construct is designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act for the pollutant on the date of
its complete application under 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations
approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166; and
    (ii) In the case of a major stationary source, the pollutant would
be emitted in significant amounts, or in the case of a major
modification, there would be a significant net emissions increase of
the pollutant.
    (4) Baseline area means any intrastate area (and every part
thereof) designated as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the Act in which the major source or major
modification establishing the minor source baseline date would
construct or would have an air quality impact for the pollutant for
which the baseline date is established, as follows: equal to or greater
than 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (annual average) for SO2, NO2,
or PM10; or equal or greater than 0.3 [mu]g/m\3\ (annual
average) for PM2.5.
    (5) Area redesignations under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of
the Act cannot intersect or be smaller than the area of impact of any
major stationary source or major modification which:
    (i) Establishes a minor source baseline date; or
    (ii) Is subject to 40 CFR 52.21 or [Utah Administrative Code (UAC)]
R307-405 and would be constructed in the same state as the state
proposing the redesignation.
    (6) Significant means, in reference to a net emissions increase or
the potential of a source to emit any of the following pollutants, a
rate of emissions that would equal or exceed any of the following
rates:
    (i) Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy).
    (ii) Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy.
    (iii) Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy.
    (iv) Particulate matter: 25 tpy of particulate matter emissions.
    (v) PM10: 15 tpy.
    (vi) PM2.5: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions;
40 tpy of sulfur dioxide emissions; 40 tpy of nitrogen oxide emissions
unless demonstrated not to be a PM2.5 precursor under 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50).
    (vii) Ozone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen
oxides.
    (viii) Lead: 0.6 tpy.
    (ix) Fluorides: 3 tpy.
    (x) Sulfuric acid mist: 7 tpy.
    (xi) Hydrogen sulfide (H2S): 10 tpy.
    (xii) Total reduced sulfur (including H2S): 10 tpy.
    (xiii) Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S): 10 tpy.
    (xiv) Municipal waste combustor organics (measured as total tetra-
through octa-chlorinated diebenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans): 3.2 x
10\M6\ megagrams per year (3.5 x 10\M6\ tons per year).
    (xv) Municipal waste combustor metals (measured as particulate
matter): 14 megagrams per year (15 tons per year).
    (xvi) Municipal waste combustor acid gases (measured as sulfur
dioxide and hydrogen chloride): 36 megagrams per year (40 tons per
year).
    (xvii) Municipal solid waste landfills emissions (measured as
nonmethane organic compounds): 45 megagrams per year (50 tons per
year).
    (7) Regulated NSR pollutant, for purposes of this section means the
following:
    (i) Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality standard
has been promulgated and any pollutant identified under 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(i) as a constituent or precursor for such pollutant.
Precursors identified by the EPA Administrator for purposes of NSR are
the following:
    (A) Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors
to ozone

in all attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    (B) Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to PM2.5 in all
attainment and unclassifiable areas.
    (C) Nitrogen oxides are presumed to be precursors to
PM2.5 in all attainment and unclassifiable areas, unless the
State demonstrates to the EPA Administrator's satisfaction or EPA
demonstrates that emissions of nitrogen oxides from sources in a
specific area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.
    (D) Volatile organic compounds are presumed not to be precursors to
PM2.5 in any attainment or unclassifiable area, unless the
State demonstrates to the EPA Administrator's satisfaction or EPA
demonstrates that emissions of volatile organic compounds from sources
in a specific area are a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations.
    (ii) Any pollutant that is subject to any standard promulgated
under section 111 of the Act;
    (iii) Any Class I or II substance subject to a standard promulgated
under or established by title VI of the Act;
    (iv) Any pollutant that otherwise is subject to regulation under
the Act.
    (v) Notwithstanding 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i) through (iv), the term
regulated NSR pollutant shall not include any or all hazardous air
pollutant either listed in section 112 of the Act, or added to the list
pursuant to section 112(b)(2) of the Act, and which have not been
delisted pursuant to section 122(b)(3) of the Act, unless the listed
hazardous air pollutant is also regulated as a constituent or precursor
of a general pollutant listed under section 108 of the Act.
    (vi) Participate matter (PM) emissions, PM2.5 emissions
and PM10 emissions shall include gaseous emissions from a
source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient
temperatures. On or after January 1, 2011 (or any earlier date
established in the upcoming rulemaking codifying test methods), such
condensable particulate matter shall be accounted for in applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM,
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits. Compliance with
emissions limitations for PM, PM2.5 and PM10
issued prior to this date shall not be based on condensable particular
matter unless required by the terms and conditions of the permit or the
applicable implementation plan. Applicability determinations made prior
to this date without accounting for condensable particular matter shall
not be considered in violation of this section unless the applicable
implementation plan required condensable particular matter to be
included.
    (8) Ambient air increments. (i) In areas designated as Class I, II,
or III, increases in pollutant concentration over the baseline
concentration shall be limited to the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum
                                                            allowable
                       Pollutant                             increase
                                                         (micrograms per
                                                           cubic meter)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Class I Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................              1
  24-hr maximum........................................              2
PM10:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................              4
  24-hr maximum........................................              8
Sulfur dioxide:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................              2
  24-hr maximum........................................              5
  3-hr maximum.........................................             25
Nitrogen dioxide Annual arithmetic mean................              2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Class II Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................              4
  24-hr maximum........................................              9
PM10:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................             17
  24-hr maximum........................................             30
Sulfur dioxide:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................             20
  24-hr maximum........................................             91
  3-hr maximum.........................................            512
Nitrogen dioxide Annual arithmetic mean................             25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Class III Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................              8
  24-hr maximum........................................             18
PM10:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................             34
  24-hr maximum........................................             60
Sulfur dioxide:
  Annual arithmetic mean...............................             40
  24-hr maximum........................................            182
  3-hr maximum.........................................            700
Nitrogen dioxide Annual arithmetic mean................             50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For any period other than an annual period the applicable
maximum allowable increase may be exceeded during one such period per
year at any one location.

0
3. Section 52.2355 is amended by designating the existing paragraph as
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2355  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) On December 3, 2007, Jon L. Huntsman, Jr. Governor, State of
Utah, provided a submission to meet the infrastructure requirements for
the State of Utah for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On April 17,
2008, M. Cheryl Heying, Director, Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, provided a second submission to meet the infrastructure
requirements for the State of Utah for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
On September 21, 2010, M. Cheryl Heying, Director, Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, provided a submission to meet the infrastructure
requirements for the State of Utah for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The State's Infrastructure SIP is approved with respect to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to CAA section 110(a)(1) and
the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C) with respect
to PSD and minor NSR requirements, (D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD
requirements, (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

[FR Doc. 2013-24889 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		March 12, 2015
TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
FROM:		Terry Johnson, EPA Region 6
SUBJECT:	March 12, 2015 Conference Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY
A conference call was held between EPA and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and Public Service Commission on March 12, 2015 to seek clarification regarding some technical comments that Arkansas DEQ and PSC submitted in their joint comment letter during the public comment period.
Topics discussed included:
The issues identified on the "Generation Concerns" and "CO2 emissions Concerns" sheets of the spreadsheet attached to the comment from Arkansas, which can be categorized into four main issues:
   * Nameplate capacity discrepancies (Cecil Lynch, Fourche Creek Wastewater, Paragould Reciprocating, Robert Ritchie, and Two Pine Landfill Gas Recovery facilities).
   * NGCC generation calculations and methodology.
   * CO2 emissions calculations and methodology.
   * Generation and emissions calculation methodologies for the following facilities: the Dell Power Station, Harry L Oswald , Hot Spring Generating Facility, Magnet Cove Gas Combustion Turbine, Pine Bluff Energy Center, Thomas Fitzhugh, and Union Power Partners.

ATTENDEES
Arkansas DEQ
Stuart Spencer			Legal Policy Advisor
Elizabeth Sartain		Environmental Program Coordinator, Air Division
Tricia Jackson			Ecologist, Air Division

Arkansas PSC
Eddie Moore			 Policy Advisor

US EPA
Kathleen Aisling		Air Program Branch, R6
Terry Johnson			Air Program Branch, R6
Ashley Mohr			Air Program Branch, R6
Clovis Steib			Air Program Branch, R6
Kristen Bremer		OAQPS, RTP
Mikail Adamantiades		CAMD, HQ
Travis Johnson			CAMD, HQ
Jeremy Mark			CAMD, HQ
Erika Wilson			CAMD, HQ


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 16482]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07946]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-62-000]

Notice of Complaint: City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri v.
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Take notice that on April 12, 2019, pursuant to sections 206, 306,
and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, 825h and Rule
206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, City Utilities of Springfield,
Missouri (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against Southwest Power
Pool, Inc. (SPP or Respondent), requesting the Commission to: (1)
Enforce current Section III.D.4 of Attachment J of SPP's Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT) for the period from June 19, 2010 through
the refund effective date established in this proceeding; and (2)
revise Section III.D.4 of Attachment J of SPP's OATT on a prospective
basis, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts listed for Respondent's, as well as affected regulatory
agencies and other entities under Rule 206(c) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206(c), as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commissions' Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents'
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the website that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 2, 2019.

    Dated: April 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07946 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67324-67325]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0174; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-10]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lapeer, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Lapeer, MI.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate amended
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Dupont--Lapeer
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the
airport. Geographic coordinates would also be updated.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0174/Airspace Docket No. 13-
AGL-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in

person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0174/
Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface to accommodate amended standard instrument
approach procedures at Dupont--Lapeer Airport, Lapeer, MI. Accordingly,
a segment would extend from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 10.9
miles north of the airport, to retain the safety and management of IFR
aircraft in Class E airspace to/from the en route environment.
Geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Dupont--Lapeer Airport,
Lapeer, MI.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2013, and
effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Lapeer, MI [Amended]

Dupont--Lapeer Airport, MI
    (Lat. 43[deg]03'59'' N., long. 83[deg]16'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Dupont--Lapeer Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 357[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.9 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 25, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-26888 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24984-24985]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11636]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-18-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gateway
Expansion Project; Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, L.L.C.

    On November 15, 2017, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
L.L.C. (Transco) filed an application in Docket No. CP18-18-000
requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant
to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain
natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the
Gateway Expansion Project (Project), and it would increase the firm
transportation capacity of Transco's existing pipeline system by 65,000
dekatherms per day and enable Transco to provide customers with an
incremental service of natural gas during high demand periods.
    On November 30, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA, July 17, 2018.
    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline, October 15, 2018.
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Transco's Project would require modifications at the existing
facilities in the following counties of New Jersey:

Essex County

Compressor Station 303
     Expansion of the building and installation of a 33,000
horsepower electric-motor driven compression unit and ancillary
equipment; and
     extension of security fencing and access to new equipment.
Roseland Meter and Regulator
     Installation of a 36-inch Main Line block valve with
automation controls.
Roseland Electric Substation
     Installation of an electric transformer unit.

Passaic County

Paterson Meter and Regulator
     Replacing the existing 12-inch headers with two new 6-inch
ultrasonic meter skids and associated equipment; and
     installation of ancillary equipment.

Background

    On January 2, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gateway Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI
was sent to affected landowners within 0.5 mile of the existing
facilities; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, two local
community groups (350 Rockland, Roseland Against the Compressor
Station), and several individual stakeholder comments. The primary
issues raised by the commenters are concerns over health impacts from
compressor station emissions; safety concerns including leaks, rupture,
and emergency responder training; concerns that the Project would
result in contaminant impacts on the nearby wetlands, wildlife, and
soils; as well as concerns on cumulative impacts. All substantive
comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with

notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-18), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: May 24, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11636 Filed 5-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35585-35586]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12495]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-507, OMB Control No. 3235-0563]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17a-10

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA'') the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collections of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 17(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
1 et seq.) (the ``Act''), generally prohibits affiliated persons of a
registered investment company (``fund'') from borrowing money or other
property from, or selling or buying securities or other property to or
from, the fund or any company that the fund controls.\1\ Section
2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated person'' of a fund to include
its investment advisers.\2\ Rule 17a-10 (17 CFR 270.17a-10) permits (i)
a subadviser \3\ of a fund to enter into transactions with funds the
subadviser does not advise but that are affiliated persons of a fund
that it does advise (e.g., other funds in the fund complex), and (ii) a
subadviser (and its affiliated persons) to enter into transactions and
arrangements with funds the subadviser does advise, but only with
respect to discrete portions of the subadvised fund for which the
subadviser does not provide investment advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3)(E).
    \3\ As defined in rule 17a-10(b)(2). 17 CFR 270.17a-10(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory
relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the
transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser
entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the
purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from
consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the
fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect
to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.\4\ This requirement
regarding the prohibitions and limitations in advisory contracts of
subadvisers relying on the rule constitutes a collection of information
under the PRA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 270.17a-10(a)(2).
    \5\ 44 U.S.C. 3501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff assumes that all existing funds with subadvisory
contracts amended those contracts to comply with the adoption of rule
17a-10 in 2003, which conditioned certain exemptions upon these
contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden
for those funds.\6\ However, the staff assumes that all newly formed
subadvised funds, and funds that enter into new contracts with
subadvisers, will incur the one-time burden by amending their contracts
to add the terms required by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Transactions of Investment Companies With Portfolio and
Subadviser Affiliates, Investment Company Act Release No. 25888
(Jan. 14, 2003) [68 FR 3153, (Jan. 22, 2003)]. We assume that funds
formed after 2003 that intended to rely on rule 17a-10 would have
included the required provision as a standard element in their
initial subadvisory contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that
approximately 314 funds enter into new subadvisory agreements each
year.\7\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the staff
estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to draft
and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order
for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule
17a-10. Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses
that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely
on rules 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3), 12d3-1 (17 CFR 270.12d3-1), and 17e-
1 (17 CFR 270.17e-1), and because we believe that funds that use one
such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour
time burden equally among all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that
the burden allocated to rule 17a-10 for this contract change would be
0.75 hours.\8\ Assuming that all 314 funds that enter into new
subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract
required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification
requirement will result in 236 burden hours annually, with an
associated cost of approximately $107,380.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on data from form N-CEN filings, as of March 2022,
there are 12,468 registered funds (open-end funds, closed-end funds,
and exchange-traded funds), 4,870 funds of which have subadvisory
relationships (approximately 39%). Based on Form N-1A and Form N-2
filings, there were 806 new registered funds in 2020. 806 new funds
x 39% = 314 funds.
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3 hours
/ 4 rules = 0.75 hours.
    \9\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
(0.75 hours x 314 portfolios = 236 burden hours); ($455 per hour x
236 hours = $107,380 total cost). The Commission's estimates
concerning the wage rates for attorney time are based on salary
information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association. The estimated wage
figure is based on published rates for in-house attorneys, modified
to account for a 1,800-hour work-year and inflation, and multiplied
by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead, yielding an effective hourly rate of $455. See Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, Report on Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the PRA. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive
or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission
rules. Complying with this collection of information requirement is
necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17a-10. Responses
will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by August 9, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: June 6, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12495 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P