                   Safe Use of Small Boats in the Workplace                                         Small boats are sometimes used in shipyard employment to provide employees access to work areas that would otherwise be inaccessible.  Small boats are also used for other specialized activities, such as diving, associated with the repair, maintenance, and construction of maritime vessels.  Prior to using small boats in the workplace, employers are responsible for assessing potential hazards and implementing measures that adequately protect workers.

When small boats are used in the workplace:

 Supply the boat with U.S. Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices (PFDs) that are equal to the number of employees designated to ride in the boat, as well as a throwable flotation aid that is stowed in a location for immediate access.

 Know and abide by the maximum allowable weight limit and number of persons for safe operation identified by the manufacturer. Ensure to take into account weight distribution and tools/equipment onboard when determining the number of personnel allowed for each trip.

 Equip boats with fire extinguishing and other emergency equipment, including radio communications (e.g., VHF transceiver).  Boats should also have a first-aid kit onboard that is inspected and restocked regularly as necessary.

 Inspect boats regularly for issues concerning machinery, equipment, and overall structure. Detailed records should be maintained and monitored of issues and corrective actions performed.

 Ensure operators are qualified and receive periodic refresher training, preferably on an annual basis. Operators should attend a safe boating course, such as the USCG Auxiliary Boating Skills and Seamanship, or equivalent, that provides the following:

                 Training in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and automated external defibrillator (AED) training, if applicable.                 Requirements for boating equipment (e.g., engines, ignition systems, batteries) and troubleshooting.

        Boat handling, such as fueling, anchoring, trimming, leaving the dock, severe weather protocol, anchoring, docking, undocking, and mooring.             Boating incidents and rescue procedures (e.g., man overboard recovery, capsizing, running aground, location and use of fire extinguishing equipment onboard).

        Signage and aids to navigation (e.g., buoyage system, light characteristics, chart symbols).            Rules associated with boating traffic, stand-on and give-way vessels, anchoring, and restricted visibility.            Weather considerations, such as wind, waves, fog, and sources of weather information.

 Functions of VHF radios, including channels, radio procedures, and types of radio calls.

 The importance of not being under the influence of drugs or alcohol when operating boats, including federal, state, and local laws that apply.                  Regularly check the National Weather Service for weather forecasts and warnings of hazardous weather.         Ensure operators file a float plan with shipyard supervisors. Normally only the date and personnel on board need to be updated for routine shipyard operations. A good float plan template is available from the USCG Auxiliary - https://floatplancentral.cgaux.org/download/USCGFloatPlan.pdf        Prior to getting underway/disembarking, operators should conduct a safety briefing that instructs personnel on:         Locations of PFDs and throwable flotation aid, as well as fire extinguishing and other emergency equipment.           The importance of wearing a PFD, remaining seated, and keeping hands, arms, and other parts of their body inside the boat while underway.           Waiting for direction to disembark or begin work from the boat.

Depending on the types of activities taking place in shipyards that small boats are used, more advanced training may be necessary.  See the example Activity Hazard Analysis, developed by the Amy Corp of Engineers, to help determine the necessary training, proficiencies, and associated risk with potential tasks performed in shipyards using small boats.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24553-24559]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137; FRL-9962-70-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Muncie Area to
Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
April 14, 2016, request from the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (Indiana) to redesignate the Muncie nonattainment area to
attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or standards) for lead. EPA is also approving the state's plan for
maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 for the area and the 2013
attainment year emissions inventory for the area. EPA is approving
these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's
implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 31, 2017, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 29, 2017. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0137 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Why is EPA concerned about lead?
II. What is the background for these actions?
III. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?
    (A) Attainment Determination and Redesignation
    (B) Indiana Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))
    (C) Comprehensive Emissions Inventory
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why is EPA concerned about lead?

    Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in
manufactured products. However, lead has serious public health effects
and depending on the level of exposure can adversely affect the nervous
system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental
systems and the cardiovascular system. Today, the highest levels of
lead in the air are usually found near lead smelters. In the Muncie
area the only source of lead emissions is Exide Technologies, whose
facility houses a lead smelter that processes used batteries and other
metal waste products.

II. What is the background for these actions?

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the primary and
secondary lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a maximum arithmetic three-month mean
concentration for a three-year period. See 40 CFR 50.16. On November
22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published air quality designations and
classifications for the 2008 lead NAAQS based upon air quality
monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009. These designations became
effective on December 31, 2010. The Muncie area was designated
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.336. IDEM
submitted their redesignation request on April 14, 2016.

III. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA authorizes EPA to redesignate an area provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has
fully approved an applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines
that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable
SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, or other permanent and
enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully
approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of
section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met
all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the CAA.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's request?

    EPA is approving the redesignation of the Muncie area to attainment
of the 2008 lead NAAQS, as well as Indiana's maintenance plan and
emissions inventory for the area. The bases for these actions follow.

(A) Attainment Determination and Redesignation

1. The Area Has Attained the 2008 Lead NAAQS (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i))
    In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7407, EPA is determining that the Muncie, Indiana area has attained the
2008 lead NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
the Muncie area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50,
appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured,
certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database. This
review addresses air quality data collected in the 2013-2015 period,
which are the most recent quality-assured data available. Our
determination that the Muncie area has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS is
based upon data for the 2013-2015 monitoring

period that show this area has monitored attainment of the lead NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and
secondary lead standards are met when the maximum arithmetic three-
month mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area.
As shown in Table 1, Indiana provided EPA with three years of
monitoring data showing that the three-month rolling average design
values for the Muncie lead monitor were all below the 2008 lead
standard.

            Table 1--Three-Month Rolling Average Design Values for the Muncie Lead Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Location                      3-month period            2013            2014            2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muncie--Mt. Pleasant Boulevard........  Nov-Jan \1\.............     0.05 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/
                                        Dec-Feb.................            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                                                     0.06 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Jan-Mar.................     0.04 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Feb-Apr.................     0.03 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/     0.05 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Mar-May.................     0.03 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/     0.06 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Apr-Jun.................     0.03 [mu]g/     0.05 [mu]g/     0.06 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        May-July................     0.03 [mu]g/     0.05 [mu]g/     0.06 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Jun-Aug.................     0.04 [mu]g/     0.06 [mu]g/     0.05 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        July-Sept...............     0.04 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Aug-Oct.................     0.05 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Sept-Nov................     0.04 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/     0.04 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
                                        Oct-Dec.................     0.04 [mu]g/     0.03 [mu]g/     0.11 [mu]g/
                                                                            m\3\            m\3\            m\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When calculating a three-month rolling average, the first two data points, November through January for 2013
  and December through February of 2013, would additionally use data from November and December of 2012.

    The data from 2013-2015 are still the most recent quality-assured
and certified data for the Muncie area. Indiana indicated that it will
continue to use and maintain the Muncie lead monitor to determine
whether the area continues to attain the standard. The 2013-2015 data
show that the maximum value for the three-year period was 0.11 [mu]g/
m\3\, with monitored lead values generally at or below 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\.
EPA's review of these data indicates that the Muncie area has attained
and continues to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, with a design value of
0.11 [mu]g/m\3\ for the period of 2013-2015.
2. The Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D and Has a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k) (Section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v))
    We have determined that Indiana has met all currently applicable
SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Muncie area
under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). In addition,
with the exception of the emissions inventory under section 172(c)(3),
all applicable planning requirements of the Indiana SIP for purposes of
redesignation have either been approved or have been suspended by
either a clean data determination or determination of attainment. As
discussed below, in this action, EPA is approving Indiana's 2013
emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive
emissions inventory requirement. Thus, we are determining that the
Indiana submittal meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for
purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA, in
accordance with sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
    In making these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP
requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and
concluded that the Indiana SIP includes measures meeting those
requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of
the CAA.
a. Indiana Has Met All Applicable Requirements for Purposes of
Redesignation of the Muncie Area Under Section 110 and Part D of the
CAA
i. Section 110 General SIP Requirements
    Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general
requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the
implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other
things, must include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the
CAA; provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices,
methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air
quality; provide for implementation of a source permit program to
regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source
within the areas covered by the plan; include provisions for the
implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; include criteria
for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and
reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs
contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in another state.
    EPA interprets the ``applicable'' requirements for an area's
redesignation to be those requirements linked with a particular area's
nonattainment designation. Therefore, we believe that the section 110
elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan
submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status, such as
the ``infrastructure SIP'' elements of section 110(a)(2), are not
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains
subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to
attainment, and thus EPA does not interpret such requirements to be
relevant applicable requirements to evaluate in a redesignation. For
example, the requirement to submit state plans addressing interstate
transport obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) continue to
apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular
area in the state, and thus are not applicable requirements to be
evaluated in the redesignation context.
    EPA has applied this interpretation consistently in many
redesignations for decades. See e.g., 81 FR 44210 (July 7, 2016) (final
redesignation for the Sullivan County, Tennessee area); 79 FR

43655 (July 28, 2014) (final redesignation for Bellefontaine, Ohio lead
nonattainment area); 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996) and 62 FR
24826 (May 7, 1997) (proposed and final redesignation for Reading,
Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996)
(final redesignation for Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio ozone
nonattainment area); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995) (final
redesignation of Tampa, Florida ozone nonattainment area). See also 65
FR 37879, 37890 (June 19, 2000) (discussing this issue in final
redesignation of Cincinnati, Ohio 1-hour ozone nonattainment area); 66
FR 50399 (October 19, 2001) (final redesignation of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 1-hour ozone nonattainment area).
    We have reviewed the Indiana SIP and determined that it meets the
general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent
they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously
approved provisions of Indiana's SIP addressing section 110
requirements (including provisions addressing lead), at 40 CFR 52.770.
    On December 12, 2011, Indiana submitted a request for EPA to
approve ``infrastructure SIP'' elements for the lead NAAQS required
under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA approved the Indiana lead
infrastructure SIP on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713).
ii. Part D Requirements
    EPA has determined that upon approval of the base year emissions
inventory discussed in this rulemaking, the Indiana SIP will meet the
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of
the CAA for the Muncie lead nonattainment area. Subpart 1 of part D
sets forth the general nonattainment requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas.
(1) Section 172 Requirements
    Section 172(c) sets out general nonattainment plan requirements. A
thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)
(``General Preamble''). EPA's longstanding interpretation of the
nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area
is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not ``applicable'' for
purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be
approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the
General Preamble, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable
requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an
area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR at 13564. EPA noted that the
requirements for reasonable further progress and other measures
designed to provide for an area's attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those nonattainment planning
requirements ``have no meaning'' for an area that has already attained
the standard. Id. This interpretation was also set forth in the
Calcagni Memorandum.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ September 4, 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division (EPA), entitled, ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its
Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a
determination of attainment, published in the Federal Register and
subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, and this determination
formally suspends a state's obligation to submit most of the attainment
planning requirements that would otherwise apply, including an
attainment demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for reasonable
further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology and
reasonably available control measures (RACT-RACM), and contingency
measures. The Clean Data Policy has been codified in regulations
regarding the implementation of the ozone and fine particulate matter
NAAQS. See e.g., 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and 72 FR 20586 (April
25, 2007). The Clean Data Policy has also been specifically applied in
a number of lead nonattainment areas where EPA has determined that the
area is attaining the lead NAAQS. See, e.g., 79 FR 46212 (August 7,
2014) (proposed determination of attainment of Lyons, Pennsylvania lead
nonattainment area); 80 FR 51127 (determination of attainment of Eagan,
Minnesota lead nonattainment area). EPA's long-standing interpretation
regarding the applicability of section 172(c)'s attainment planning
requirements for an area that is attaining a NAAQS applies in this
redesignation of the Muncie lead nonattainment area as well. Because we
are determining that the Muncie area has reached attainment, Indiana
will not need to address these additional measures to provide for
attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements are no longer considered
to be applicable as long as the area continues to attain the standard
until redesignation. (40 CFR 51.918). Therefore, Indiana has met its
requirements under CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
    As noted above, additional section 172(c) attainment planning
requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating the state's
redesignation request. The reasonable further progress (RFP)
requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that
must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section
172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the
area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, and
section 172(c)(6)'s requirement that the SIP contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard, are not applicable
requirements that Indiana must meet here because the Muncie area has
monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions.
Indiana submitted a 2013 base year emissions inventory along with their
redesignation request on April 14, 2016, and requested that the 2013
inventory be used as the most accurate and current inventory. As
discussed below in section III(C), EPA is approving the 2013 attainment
year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory
requirement for the Muncie area.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Indiana's current NSR
program on October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51114). In addition, the state's
maintenance plan does not rely on nonattainment NSR, therefore having a
fully approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement, but that,
nonetheless, we have approved the state's program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A detailed rationale for this view is described in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled, ``Part D New Source
Review Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to
Attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we find that the
Indiana SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation.

(2) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway and transit projects, conform to the air quality
planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine
conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects
developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the
Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other
Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). In light
of the elimination of lead additives in gasoline, transportation
conformity does not apply to the lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 66964, 67043
n.120. EPA approved Indiana's general conformity SIP on January 14,
1998 (63 FR 2146).
b. Indiana Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under Section 110(k) of
the CAA
    Upon final approval of Indiana's comprehensive 2013 emissions
inventories for the Muncie lead area, EPA will have fully approved the
Indiana SIP for the Muncie area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation, in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in
approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni Memorandum at (3);
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3d 984,
989-990 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001). EPA
also relies on measures approved in conjunction with a redesignation
action. See, e.g., 68 FR 25413 (May 12, 2003) (approving I/M program
for St. Louis) and 68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) (approving redesignation
relying in part on I/M program approval). As discussed in the prior
section, Indiana has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved,
a number of required SIP provisions addressing the 2008 lead standards.
As part of its redesignation request and maintenance plan submittal,
Indiana submitted a demonstration to EPA that the Muncie nonattainment
area has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c),
EPA's determination that the area has attained the 2008 lead standards
will suspend the requirement to submit certain planning SIPs related to
attainment, including attainment demonstration requirements, the RACT-
RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, the RFP and
attainment demonstration requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and (6) and
182(b)(1) of the CAA, and the requirement for contingency measures of
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. As noted above, the area has continued to
attain the standard. Of the CAA requirements applicable to this
redesignation request, only the emissions inventory requirement of
section 172(c)(3) remains.
    In today's action, EPA is approving Indiana's 2013 emissions
inventories for the Muncie area as meeting the requirement of section
172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Muncie area SIP provisions are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. Therefore,
the Administrator has fully approved the applicable requirements for
the Muncie area under section 110(k) in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of the SIPs and
Applicable Federal Air Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii))
    EPA believes that Indiana has demonstrated that the observed air
quality improvement in the Muncie area is due to permanent and
enforceable reductions in emissions. The only stationary source of lead
in the Muncie area is the Exide Technologies facility. According to
Indiana this source complies with EPA's January 5, 2012 National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary
lead smelting at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X. According to Indiana, Exide
Technologies complied with this NESHAP through the installation of
control technologies and adoption of recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are also located in Title 326, Articles 15 and 20 of
the Indiana Administrative Code (80 FR 42393).

(B) Indiana Has a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA (Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv))

    In conjunction with Indiana's request to redesignate the Muncie
nonattainment area to attainment status, Indiana has submitted a SIP
revision to provide for maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the area
through 2030.
1. What is required in a maintenance plan?
    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a
maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to
attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued
attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which
demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for 10
years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must
contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA
deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future lead
violations.
    The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional
guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states
that a maintenance plan should address the following items: The
attainment emissions inventory, a maintenance demonstration showing
maintenance for the 10 years of the maintenance period, a commitment to
maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be
used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a
contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
    Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to
attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of
the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance
``for a period of 10 years following redesignation.'' Calcagni
memorandum at 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year
inventory. Calcagni memorandum at 9-10.
    As discussed in detail in the section below, the state's
maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the area's
emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories
through 2030, more than 10 years after redesignation.
2. Attainment Inventory
    Indiana developed an emissions inventory for lead for 2013, one of
the years in the period during which the Muncie area monitored
attainment of the 2008 lead standard. The attainment level of emissions
is summarized in Table 2 below along with future maintenance
projections.

3. Demonstration of Maintenance
    Along with the redesignation request, Indiana submitted a revision
to its lead SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Muncie area, as
required by section 175A of the CAA. Indiana's plan demonstrates
maintenance of the 2008 lead standard through 2030 by showing that
current and future emissions of lead in the area remain at or below
attainment year emission levels. Section 175A requires a state seeking
redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years after the
redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance
``for a period of 10 years following redesignation.'' Calcagni
memorandum at 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year
inventory. Calcagni memorandum at 9-10.
    Indiana's plan demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS
through 2030 by showing that current and future emissions of lead for
the area will not cause an exceedance of the standard. For the baseline
and attainment year inventories, Indiana used Exide Technologies'
actual emissions instead of allowable emissions under Indiana
Administrative Code. As shown in Table 2, Indiana's submittal indicates
that the 2010 and 2013 inventories are based on actual emissions from
the Exide Technologies facility (which were 0.82 tons per year (tpy) in
2010 and 0.63 tpy in 2013), and not the allowable emissions set forth
in Exide Technologies' operating permit (which were 3.48 tpy in 2010
and 1.73 tpy in 2013). Indiana submitted computer-modeled data
indicating that the 2030 maintenance inventory, which is based on the
facility's allowable emissions with controls implemented to meet the
NESHAP for secondary lead smelting, will ensure that the Muncie area
continues to maintain the standard through 2030. To meet the NESHAP for
secondary lead smelters, Exide Technologies facility's main building
serves as a total enclosure that maintains negative air pressure at all
times and is vented to control devices designed to capture lead
particulate emissions. This ensures fugitive dust generated inside the
facility is not released outside the enclosure and into the ambient
air. Since these controls have been installed at the facility, the
monitored design value concentrations at the site have been and should
remain below the 2008 lead NAAQS. Indiana expects that these permanent
and enforceable controls installed at Exide Technologies will ensure
that there will be no exceedances of the lead NAAQS in the future. With
no other significant sources of lead, the Muncie area is predicted to
stay below the standard.

  Table 2--Comparison of 2010, 2013, and 2030 Lead Totals (tpy) for the
                              Muncie Area *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2010 (Baseline)         2013 (Attainment)       2030 (Maintenance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             0.82                    0.63                     1.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2010 Baseline and 2013 attainment inventories reflect actual lead
  emissions in the Muncie area, while the 2030 maintenance inventory
  reflects modeled allowable emissions in Exide Technologies' operating
  permit.

4. Monitoring Network
    Indiana's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to
operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Indiana currently
operates one lead monitor in the Muncie, Indiana area.
5. Verification of Continued Attainment
    Indiana remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring
data and enter all data into the Air Quality System (AQS) in accordance
with Federal guidelines. Indiana will use these data, supplemented with
additional information as necessary, to assure that the area continues
to attain the standard. Indiana will also continue to develop and
submit periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal
Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to
track future levels of emissions. Both of these actions will help to
verify continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
6. Contingency Plan
    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA.
    Indiana's contingency plan defines a warning level and action level
response. The warning level response will trigger when a lead monitor
three-month rolling average exceeds 0.143 [mu]g/m\3\ in the maintenance
area. If a warning level response is triggered, Indiana will conduct a
study to determine whether the lead values indicate a trend toward
exceeding the standard and what control measure would be necessary to
reverse the trend within twelve months of the conclusion of the
calendar year. The action level response will be prompted by the
determination of the warning level study that a reverse of the trend is
needed, or by the three-month rolling average exceeding 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\. The action level response will require Indiana to work with the
culpable entity to evaluate and implement the needed control measures
to bring the area into attainment within 18 months of the conclusion of
the calendar year that triggered the response.
    Currently, no new sources of lead are projected for the Muncie
area, so all control measures would be determined after an analysis of
the situation but could include further controls on fugitive lead
emissions, reduction of operating hours, or improved housekeeping and
maintenance. Indiana commits to continue implementing SIP requirements
upon and after redesignation.
    EPA believes that Indiana's contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
    As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Indiana commits to
submit to the EPA an updated lead maintenance plan eight years after
redesignation of the Muncie area to cover an additional 10-year period
beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period.
    For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is approving Indiana's
2008 lead maintenance plan for the Muncie area as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 175A.

(C) Comprehensive Emissions Inventory

    As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to
submit a comprehensive emissions inventory including all lead sources
in the nonattainment area. In its April 14, 2016

submittal, Indiana submitted comprehensive emissions inventories for
its 2010 base year, 2013 attainment year, and 2030 maintenance year.
    EPA believes that the 2010, 2013, and 2030 emissions inventories
are complete and accurate, and meet the requirement of CAA section
172(c)(3). The inventories are shown in Table 3.

  Table 3--2010, 2013, and 2030 Lead Totals (tpy) for the Muncie Area *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2010 (Baseline)         2013 (Attainment)       2030 (Maintenance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             0.82                    0.63                     1.73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2010 Baseline and 2013 attainment inventories reflect actual lead
  emissions in the Muncie area, while the 2030 maintenance inventory
  reflects modeled allowable emissions in Exide Technologies' operating
  permit.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking several actions related to the redesignation of the
Muncie area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. First, EPA is
finding that Indiana meets the requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the Muncie area to attainment of
the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is thus approving Indiana's request to change
the designation of the Muncie area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    In addition, EPA is approving Indiana's lead maintenance plan for
the Muncie area as a revision to the Indiana SIP. Finally, EPA is
approving the 2013 lead attainment year emission inventory which
satisfies the requirement in section 172(c)(3) for a current, accurate
and comprehensive emission inventory.
    We are publishing these actions without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 31, 2017
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by June 29, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective July
31, 2017.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 4, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding new
entries in alphabetical order for ``Muncie 2008 lead emissions
inventory'' and ``Muncie 2008 lead maintenance plan'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Title                    Indiana date          EPA approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Muncie 2008 lead emissions inventory....       4/14/2016  5/30/2017 [insert Federal
                                                           Register citation].
Muncie 2008 lead maintenance plan.......       4/14/2016  5/30/2017 [insert Federal
                                                           Register citation].

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

0
3. Section 52.797 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.797  Control strategy: Lead.

* * * * *
    (f) Approval--Indiana's 2008 lead emissions inventory for the
Muncie area, as submitted on April 14, 2016, satisfying the emission
inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for
the Muncie area.
    (g) Approval--The 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Muncie,
Indiana nonattainment area has been approved as submitted on April 14,
2016.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
5. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Muncie, IN in
the table entitled ``Indiana--2008 Lead NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                            Indiana--2008 Lead NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Designation for the 2008 NAAQS \a\
                      Designated area                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                               Date \1\                     Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Muncie, IN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware County (part)....................................       5/30/2017  Attainment.
    A portion of the City of Muncie, Indiana bounded to
     the North by West 26th Street/Hines Road, to the east
     by Cowan Road, to the south by West Fuson Road, and
     to the west by a line running south from the eastern
     edge of Victory Temple's driveway to South Hoyt
     Avenue and then along South Hoyt Avenue..

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ December 31, 2011 unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-10906 Filed 5-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD

Garry Kaufman, Division Director
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80246-1530

Dear Mr. Kaufman:

On March 22, 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency received Colorado's State Implementation Plan submission to address Clean Air Act Section 182(c) requirements for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Serious nonattainment area under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. We have reviewed the submittal and have determined that it fulfills the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. We are now reviewing the state's submission to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which will evaluate whether the submission can be approved.

If you have any questions regarding our completeness review, please call me at<PHONE_NUMBER> or have your staff contact Abby Fulton at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
								Sincerely,
																	Carl Daly
								Acting Director
								Air and Radiation Division


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70910-70911]
[DOCID:fr13de07-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56923; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-146]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding Fees for the CBOE Stock Exchange

December 6, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 30, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fees applicable to the CBOE
Stock Exchange (``CBSX''). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at

the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The CBSX fee schedule lists the fees applicable to trading on CBSX.
The transaction fees are based on whether the executing member is
``taking'' liquidity or ``making'' liquidity in connection with the
transaction. Odd-lot transactions, however, have been charged $0.003
per share to both the maker and taker side. This filing proposes to
change the odd-lot charge so that it is identical to the round-lot
maker-taker charge. Thus, odd-lot takers (odd-lot orders submitted to
CBSX) will be charged $0.0029 per share and odd-lot makers (the CBSX
Market-Makers that trade against odd-lots) will receive a per-share
rebate consistent with the rebate portion of the fee schedule. The
filing also amends the way the fees are expressed from ``per 100
shares'' to ``per share'' in order to accommodate odd-lots (which
involve lots of less than 100 shares). The changes will take effect
Monday, December 3, 2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \4\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become
effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\6\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-CBOE-2007-146 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-146. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying 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. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-146 and should be
submitted on or before January 3, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24119 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35454-35457]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12514]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89007; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the
Rule Relating to MidPoint Discretionary Orders To Allow Optional Offset
or Quote Depletion Protection Instructions

June 4, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On February 19, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(g), which describes the
handling of MidPoint Discretionary Orders entered on the Exchange. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on March 6, 2020.\3\ On April 16, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\

On May 19, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as
originally filed.\6\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposal. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons, and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88309 (March 2,
2020), 85 FR 13193.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88663, 85 FR 22474
(April 22, 2020). The Commission designated June 4, 2020 as the date
by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal to:
(1) Modify the circumstances that would enable or refresh a QDP
active period (see infra note 15); (2) set the QDP active period as
2 milliseconds; (3) include additional justification in support of
the proposed rule change, including data in support of the QDP
functionality; and (4) make technical and conforming changes.
Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2020-010/srcboeedgx2020010-7240756-217167.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    A MidPoint Discretionary Order (``MDO'') is a limit order that is
executable at the national best bid (``NBB'') for an order to buy or
the national best offer (``NBO'') for an order to sell while resting on
the EDGX Book,\7\ with discretion to execute at prices to and including
the midpoint of the national best bid or offer (``NBBO'').\8\ The
Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(g) to introduce two optional
instructions that Users \9\ would be able to include on MDOs entered on
the Exchange. First, the Exchange would allow Users to enter MDOs with
an offset to the NBBO, similar to orders entered with a Primary Peg
Instruction today.\10\ Second, the Exchange would allow Users to enter
MDOs that include a Quote Depletion Protection (``QDP'') instruction
that would disable discretion (i.e., the order's ability to execute at
a more aggressive price than its ranked price) for a limited period in
certain circumstances where the best bid or offer displayed on the EDGX
Book is executed below one round lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The ``EDGX Book'' is the electronic file of orders for the
Exchange's trading system. See EDGX Rule 1.5(d).
    \8\ See EDGX Rule 11.8(g).
    \9\ A ``User'' is any member or sponsored participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the Exchange's trading system. See
EDGX Rule 1.5(ee).
    \10\ See EDGX Rule 11.6(j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offset Instruction

    As proposed, MDOs entered with an offset would function in the same
manner as currently implemented for Primary Peg orders entered with an
offset pursuant to Rule 11.6(j)(2). First, a User entering an MDO would
be able to select an offset equal to or greater than one minimum price
variation (``MPV'') above or below the NBB or NBO to which the order is
pegged (``Offset Amount''). Second, the Offset Amount for an MDO that
is to be displayed on the EDGX Book would need to result in the price
of such order being inferior to or equal to the inside quote on the
same side of the market.\11\ The offset functionality would be an
optional feature that Users could include when entering an MDO for
trading on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ An MDO defaults to a displayed instruction unless the User
includes a non-displayed instruction on the order. See EDGX Rule
11.8(g)(4). Similar to the current handling of orders entered with a
Primary Peg instruction, the Exchange is not proposing to accept
displayed MDOs with an aggressive offset at this time. See Amendment
1, supra note 6, at 5 n.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to
EDGX Rule 11.8(g) to account for the offset functionality.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend language in the
introductory paragraph to Rule 11.8(g) and subparagraphs (g)(6) and
(8).\12\ According to the Exchange, these changes reflect the proposed
operation of MDOs entered with an offset and would not otherwise impact
the handling of MDOs entered on the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a detailed description of these proposed changes, see
Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 6-7.
    \13\ See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote Depletion Protection

    The Exchange also proposes to introduce QDP, an optional
instruction that Users could enable on an MDO to limit the order's
ability to exercise discretion in certain circumstances.\14\ The QDP
feature would do this by tracking significant executions of orders that
constitute the best bid or offer on EDGX.\15\ As proposed, a ``QDP
Active Period'' would be enabled or refreshed for buy (sell) MDOs if
the best bid (offer) displayed on the EDGX Book is executed below one
round lot.\16\ When a QDP Active Period is initially enabled, or
refreshed by a subsequent execution of the best bid (offer) then
displayed on the EDGX Book, it would remain enabled for two
milliseconds.\17\ During this QDP Active Period, an MDO entered with a
QDP instruction would not exercise discretion. Instead, such an order
would be only be executable at its ranked price.\18\ The ranked price
is always executable unless the User cancels the order from the book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Proposed changes related to the introduction of the QDP
instruction are reflected in proposed subparagraph (10) under EDGX
Rule 11.8(g).
    \15\ The Exchange initially proposed that the QDP Active Period
also could be enabled or refreshed in certain circumstances by
significant cancellations. Amendment No. 1 removed this aspect of
the proposal.
    \16\ Rule 611 of Regulation NMS generally limits executions to
prices that are at or better than the protected best bid or offer.
However, there are circumstances, such as the use of intermarket
sweep orders, where an order may be executed at an inferior price.
In these circumstances, an execution of the EDGX BBO below one round
lot would trigger a QDP Active Period even though that quotation is
inferior to the NBBO. See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 8 n.10.
    \17\ The QDP Active Period would always last for at least two
milliseconds. If the QDP Active Period is refreshed by a subsequent
execution, such execution would result in a new two millisecond
timer being started. Although the MDO would not exercise discretion
during the QDP Active Period, its priority would not be impacted,
and any applicable priority at its pegged price would be retained
when QDP is enabled. See Amendment 1, supra note 6, at 8 n.12.
    \18\ An MDO's ranked price is the order's displayed or non-
displayed pegged price, which may or may not include an offset, as
proposed, or the order's limit price if that limit price is less
aggressive than the applicable pegged price. See Amendment 1, supra
note 6, at 8 n.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless the User chooses otherwise, an MDO to buy (sell) entered
with a QDP instruction would default to a non-displayed instruction and
would include an Offset Amount equal to one MPV below (above) the NBB
(NBO).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange also proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(4) to
reflect the fact that MDOs entered with a QDP instruction would
default to non-displayed. MDOs that are not entered with the QDP
instruction would continue to default to a displayed instruction, as
currently provided in EDGX Rule 11.8(g)(4). See Amendment 1, supra
note 6, at 9 n.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\20\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general,
to protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGX proposes to introduce optional instructions that (1) would
allow Users to enter MDOs with an offset to the NBB

or NBO and (2) enter MDOs with a QDP instruction that would disable
discretion for 2 milliseconds where the best bid or offer displayed on
the EDGX Book is executed below one round lot. The Exchange asserts
that similar offset functionality is already available on the Exchange
in both the Primary Peg order type and the Discretionary Range
instruction. EDGX further believes that the flexibility to specify an
offset would be beneficial for market participants that require
additional discretion to manage their order flow on the Exchange.
    The Exchange states that the QDP instruction is intended to provide
Users with a protective feature that limits an order's ability to
exercise discretion in certain circumstances that may indicate that the
market is moving against the resting MDO.\22\ The Exchange provided
data for a ten day period that tested the potential performance of the
proposed QDP instruction in protecting Users from a potential negative
price move by observing market movements in the two milliseconds
following instances where QDP would have been enabled due to the
execution of the EDGX best bid or offer. The Exchange concluded that
the data showed: (1) MDOs entered with a QDP instruction could benefit
from avoiding potentially impactful executions within the order's
discretionary range when there are impending price moves; and (2) even
though the market might remain static after QDP is enabled, the
opportunity cost for disabling discretion in those circumstances is
small as QDP would only be enabled for a limited period of time during
the trading day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 6, at 17-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the QDP feature is reasonably designed
to allow market participants who utilize MDOs the opportunity to avoid
an unfavorable execution when the market moves against a resting MDO.
In reaching this conclusion, the Commission evaluated the proposed rule
change and the data provided by the Exchange demonstrating correlation
between the operation of the QDP feature and price instability on the
EDGX market. In particular, the data indicates that: (i) There is a
reasonable likelihood that the market will move against a resting MDO
or remain static during a QDP Active Period; and (ii) a QDP Active
Period would be active on average less than a half second per trading
day per symbol. In addition, the QDP instruction is designed so that,
during the QDP Active Period, only the discretion to execute at a more
aggressive price would be suppressed and therefore an MDO, whether
displayed or non-displayed, would still be accessible to liquidity
takers at its ranked price. Finally, no User would be required to use
either of the two proposed order instructions for the MDO (i.e., NBBO
offset and QDP); it is optional functionality that would be available
to Users who believe it may better effect their trading strategies.
Therefore, the Commission believes that providing market participants
the ability to use this optional tool to potentially improve the
quality of their executions would promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.
    The Commission also notes that there is current, existing
functionality for discretionary orders that is similar, although not
identical, to both the offset and QDP instructions on the Exchange \23\
and other national securities exchanges.\24\ For the NBBO offset in
particular, the Commission notes that the proposed offset instruction
is a close variant of the discretion and pegging functionality that the
Commission has approved under past exchange proposals.\25\ These
functionalities continue to exist on the Exchange and on other
exchanges.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., EDGX Rule 11.6(j)(2).
    \24\ See, e.g., IEX Rule 11.190(b)(10), Nasdaq Rule 4703(g).
    \25\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73468 (Oct.
29, 2014), 79 FR 65450 (Nov. 4, 2014).
    \26\ See, e.g., EDGX Rule 11.6(d); EDGX Rule 11.6(j)(2); Nasdaq
Rule 4703(g). The Commission notes that the Exchange and other
exchanges offer order types or instructions that would permit an
order with discretion or an order with pegging functionality (or
both, in some cases) to rest more passively on the exchange's book
(e.g., further away from the NBB or NBO). As noted above, the
Exchange offers both a Discretionary Range instruction (which would
allow a discretionary order to rest passively) and a Primary Peg
instruction (which would allow an order to be pegged one or more
MPVs away from the NBB or NBO). Other exchange rules permit a
discretionary order to be combined with a pegged order and would
allow for a passive offset. See, e.g., Nasdaq Rule 4703(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes
that this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is
consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonably designed to promote fair and orderly
markets, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Rule
Change

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the
Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-010, and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2020.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange further
revised the proposal to: (1) Modify the circumstances that would enable
or refresh a QDP active period; (2) set the QDP active period as 2
milliseconds; (3) include additional justification in support of the
proposed rule change, including data in support of the QDP
functionality; and (4) make technical and conforming changes. The
changes and additional information in Amendment No. 1 add additional
clarity to the original substance of the proposed rule change. In
addition, the content of Amendment No. 1 assists the Commission's
determination of whether the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\27\ to approve the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGX-2020-010), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12514 Filed 6-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 37031-37032]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0434; FRL-8935-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid
Production (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2032.06, OMB Control Number 2060-
0529

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 26,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2008-0434, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 30, 2008 (73 FR 31088), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2008-0434, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Enforcement
and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public
disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid Production (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2032.06, OMB Control Number 2060-0529.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for hydrochloric acid production were proposed on
September 18, 2001 (66 FR 48174), final rule on April 17, 2003 (68 FR
19076), amended on August 24, 2005 (70 FR 49530), and promulgated on
April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17738). This subpart applies to each new,
reconstructed, or existing affected major source at a hydrochloric acid
(HCI) production facility.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require one-time only initial
notifications, compliance status reports, and performance tests by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities
subject to NESHAP. Semiannual compliance reports are also required.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 541
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information either to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of hydrochloric
acid production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 94,104.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $8,647,612, including $7,959,759 in
annual labor costs, $53,500 in total capital/startup costs, and
$634,353 in O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden hours currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: July 20, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-17836 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 13964]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Safety Oversight and Certification Advisory Committee
(SOCAC) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the SOCAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 29, 2021, from 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by March 22, 2021.
    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
March 22, 2021.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public
who wish to observe the meeting must RSVP by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information on the committee and copies of the meeting
minutes will be available on the FAA Committee website at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thuy H. Cooper, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any committee related request should be sent to the
person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SOCAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), in accordance with the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Public
Law 115-254, to provide advice to the Secretary on policy-level issues
facing the aviation community that are related to FAA safety oversight
and certification programs and activities.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

 Review and Acceptance of December 1, 2020, Minutes
 Subcommittee Report
 Aviation Rulemaking Committee Activities
 FAA Updates

    Additional information will be posted on the committee's website
listed in the ADDRESSES section at least one week in advance of the
meeting.

III. Public Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public on a first-come, first
served basis, as space is limited. Please confirm your attendance with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Please provide the following information: Full legal name, country of
citizenship, and name of your industry association or applicable
affiliation. Anyone that has registered to attend the meeting will be
notified in a timely manner prior to the meeting.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. Any member of the public may present a written
statement to the committee at any time by providing a copy to the
Designated Federal Officer via the email listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, 2021.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-05060 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P