[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63686-63689]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65500; File No. SR-BATS-2011-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Definition of Professional and Require That All Professional Orders Be
Appropriately Marked

October 6, 2011.
    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 September 29, 2011, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal for the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'') to amend Rule 16.1 (Definitions) to adopt a definition of
``Professional'' on the Exchange and require that all Professional
orders be appropriately marked by Exchange members.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 16.1 (Definitions) to
adopt a definition of ``Professional'' on the Exchange and require that
all Professional orders be appropriately marked.
    This filing is similar to previous filings of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
in connection with the rules of the Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC
(``BOX''), the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC on behalf of the NASDAQ Options
Market (``NOM''), PHLX NASDAQ OMX, Inc. (``Phlx''), the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), and Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated, (``CBOE''), which dealt with establishing a new
definition of ``Professional'' as a person or entity that places a
certain high volume of orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month in his or her own beneficial account.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65036 (August 4,
2011), 76 FR 49517 (August 10, 2011) (SR-BX-2011-049); 63028
(October 1, 2010), 75 FR 62443 (October 8, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-
099); 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR 17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-
2010-05); 61198 (December 17, 2009), 74 FR 68880 (December 29,
2009)(SR-CBOE-2009-078); and 59287 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5694
(January 30, 2009) (SR-ISE-2006-26). A filing by NYSE Amex LLC
(``NYSE Amex'') proposing a similar Professional designation was
based on the Phlx, ISE, and CBOE proposals. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61818 (March 31, 2010), 75 FR 17457 (April 6, 2010)
(SR-NYSEAmex-2010-18). The cited filings discuss, among other
things, the need for a Professional designation to be applied by
members of the respective exchanges because the systems of such
exchanges differentiate for execution or processing purposes based
on order origin. BATS Options, like NOM and BOX, does not
differentiate among orders based on their origin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    A member of BATS Options is known as an Options Member.\6\ This is
a firm or organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to
Chapter XVII of the Exchange's Rules for purposes of participating in
options trading on BATS Options as an Options Order Entry Firm or
Options Market Maker.\7\ Options traded by Options Members (which may
include trades on behalf of Public Customers) \8\ on BATS Options, a
wholly electronic exchange, are electronically executable and routable.
The System \9\ and rules provide for the ranking, display, and
execution of all orders in price/time priority without regard to the
status of the person or entity entering an order.\10\ The Exchange
notes that BATS Options has, similar to BOX and NOM and in contrast to
certain other options markets, a ``flat'' system that does not
differentiate for execution or processing purposes among orders on the
basis of who or what entity enters an order on the Exchange.\11\ The
Exchange notes that no change to execution priority on BATS Options is
being proposed as part of this rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 16.1(a)(38). Some Options Members are also members
of other options exchanges such as, for example, ISE, CBOE, Phlx, or
NOM.
    \7\ An ``Options Order Entry Firm'' or ``Order Entry Firm'' or
``OEF'' is defined in Rule 16.1(a)(36) as: ``those Options Members
representing as agent Customer Orders on BATS Options and those non-
Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading.'' Options
Market Maker or Market Maker is defined in Rule 16.1(a)(37) as: ``an
Options Member registered with the Exchange for the purpose of
making markets in options contracts traded on the Exchange and that
is vested with the rights and responsibilities specified in Chapter
XXII of [the Exchange's] Rules.''
    \8\ ``Public Customer'' is defined in Rule 16.1(a)(46) as: ``a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.''
    \9\ ``System'' is defined in Rule 16.1(a)(58) as: ``the
automated trading system used by BATS Options for the trading of
options contracts.''
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61419 (January 26,
2010), 75 FR 5157, 5159 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031). See
also Rule 22.8, which discusses the price/time execution algorithm
for System orders and states, in relevant part, that the System will
execute trading interest at the best price in the System before
executing trading interest at the next best price, and that the
System will execute displayed orders before non-displayed orders at
the same price.
    \11\ In contrast to BATS Options, hybrid options exchanges such
as, for example, Phlx and CBOE blend auction and electronic market
structures that differentiate certain order priority and execution
functions based upon, among other things, the origin of the order
(e.g., whether the order was a customer, market maker, broker or
dealer, firm, or other type of order); these exchanges also charge
different fees based on order origin. BATS Options does, like other
exchanges, differentiate fees based on order origin. For example,
fees for removing liquidity are different for customers than they
are for market makers and firms. This filing does not propose any
changes in respect of the BATS Options fee structure, though the
Exchange does intend to file a proposal separately to adopt fees for
Professional orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange routes orders to other options exchanges (``Away
Exchanges'') through its affiliate, BATS Trading, Inc. (``BATS
Trading''), and through non-affiliated third-party broker-dealers. The
Exchange's general routing procedures are set forth in Rule 21.9 (Order
Routing), which states in paragraph (c) that, among other things, once
routed by the System, an order becomes subject to the rules and
procedures of the destination market.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rule 21.1(b) states: ``Orders sent by the System to other
options exchanges do not retain time priority with respect to other
orders in the System and the System shall continue to execute other
orders while routed orders are away at another options exchange.
Once routed by the System, an order becomes subject to the rules and
procedures of the destination options exchange including, but not
limited to, order cancellation. If a routed order is subsequently
returned, in whole or in part, that order, or its remainder, shall
receive a new time stamp reflecting the time of its return to the
System.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many other options exchanges, namely the CBOE, ISE, NYSE AMEX,
Phlx, NOM and BOX, already have rules that are similar to the
Professional designation rule proposed by the Exchange. The above noted
exchanges make differentiations based on whether an order is marked
Professional or otherwise. Some Options Members, including BATS Trading
and the Exchange's third-party routing broker-dealers, are, as noted,
also members of other options exchanges that have a Professional
designation. As members of these exchanges, such Options Members are
subject to their Professional designation rules. And, as mentioned
previously, Exchange Rules indicate that orders routed by these broker-
dealers become subject to the rules and procedures of the Away
Exchanges.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Once routed by the System, an order becomes subject to the
rules and procedures of the destination market including, but not
limited to, order cancellation. See Rule 21.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that disparate rules with respect to
Professional order designation, and lack of uniform application of such
rules, do not promote the best regulation and may, in fact, encourage
regulatory arbitrage.\14\ The Exchange believes that it is therefore
prudent and necessary to have a Professional designation rule as is
commonplace in the industry, particularly where BATS Trading and the
Exchange's third-party routing broker-dealers (like other Options
Members) are members of several

exchanges that have rules requiring Professional order designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Exchange believes that the risk of regulatory arbitrage
is heightened where not all exchanges have Professional designation
rules; and there is a lack of uniformity regarding Professional Rule
Exchanges marking orders as Professional when routing such orders
away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposal
    The Exchange proposes new Rule 16.1(a)(45) to state that the term
``Professional'' means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or
dealer in securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed
options per day on average during a calendar month for its own
beneficial account(s). Moreover, in order to properly represent orders
entered on the Exchange according to the new definition, an Options
Member will be required to appropriately mark all Professional
orders.\15\ To comply with this requirement, Options Members will be
required to review their Public Customers' activity on at least a
quarterly basis to determine whether orders that are not for the
account of a broker-dealer should be represented as Professional
orders.\16\ Upon publication of the notice regarding this proposal, the
Exchange will issue a notice to Options Members providing them at least
ten business days notice of the procedures for the implementation of
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange intends to require Members to identify
Professional orders submitted electronically, and will separately
notify its Members regarding this requirement.
    \16\ Members will be required to conduct a quarterly review and
make any appropriate changes to the way in which they are
representing orders within five business days after the end of each
calendar quarter. While Members will only be required to review
their accounts on a quarterly basis, if during a quarter the
Exchange identifies a customer for which orders are being
represented as other than Professional orders but that has averaged
more than 390 orders per day during a month, the Exchange will
notify the Member and the Member will be required to change the
manner in which it is representing the customer's orders within five
business days. This is similar to the process of other options
exchanges that have adopted a Professional designation. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61802 (March 30, 2010), 75 FR
17193 (April 5, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Professional definition proposed by BATS Options is similar to
the Professional designation that has been adopted by BOX, NOM, Phlx,
ISE, CBOE, and NYSE Amex.\17\ As noted, the Professional definition
will not impact the Exchange's price/time order entry (priority)
system.\18\ Instead, the Exchange's proposal will ensure that Options
Members mark their Professional orders properly, that is, similarly in
terms of Professional order identification regardless of whether the
order is placed on BATS Options or some other another of the options
exchanges with a Professional designation. Moreover, with the proposed
Professional designation in place, the Exchange will be able to accept
orders that are marked Professional.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 5.
    \18\ For example, unlike the Phlx proposal (which, among other
things, discusses that Professional orders on Phlx will be treated
in the same manner as off-floor brokers in terms of certain priority
rules), the Exchange's proposal does not address or impact any
priority relationship for Professional as opposed to other BATS
Options orders.
    \19\ Currently, BATS Options only accepts orders that are marked
as customer, firm, or market maker. While the Exchange does not
intend to differentiate among Professional and other orders for
priority purposes, it may, in the future, feel that it is
appropriate to differentiate its routing or other fees in respect of
Professional as opposed to other orders; and if so, the Exchange
intends to file an appropriate fee-related rule filing(s). The
Exchange does not address its fee structure in the present filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of an order as a Professional order would not
result in any different treatment of such order for purposes of BATS
Options rules concerning away order protection or routing to Away
Exchanges. That is, all non broker or dealer orders, including those
that meet the definition of Professional orders, would continue to be
treated as Public Customers for purposes of the Exchange's rules
regarding order protection and routing to Away Exchanges.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., Rule 21.9 and Chapter XXVII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that identifying Professional accounts based
upon the average number of orders entered in qualified accounts is an
appropriately objective approach that will reasonably distinguish such
persons and entities from retail investors or market participants. The
Exchange proposes the threshold of 390 orders per day on average over a
calendar month, because it believes that this number far exceeds the
number of orders that are entered by retail investors in a single
day.\21\ Moreover, the 390 orders per day threshold proposed by the
Exchange directly corresponds to the daily order volume recognized by
Phlx, NOM, ISE, and other options exchanges that have, as previously
discussed, established Professional order designations.\22\ In
addition, basing the standard on the number of orders that are entered
in listed options for a qualified account(s) assures that Professional
account holders cannot inappropriately avoid the purpose of the rule by
spreading their trading activity over multiple exchanges, and using an
average number over a calendar month will prevent gaming of the 390
order threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 390 orders is equal to the total number of orders that a
person would place in a day if that person entered one order every
minute from market open to market close. Many of the largest retail-
oriented electronic brokers offer lower commission rates to
customers they define as ``active traders.'' Publicly available
information from the Web sites of Charles Schwab, Fidelity, TD
Ameritrade and OptionsXpress all define ``active trader'' as someone
who executes only a few options trades per month. The highest
required trading activity to qualify as an active trader among these
four firms was 35 trades per quarter. See note 11 of Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 57254 (February 1, 2008), 73 FR 7345, 7347
(SR-ISE-2006-26) (which also notes that a study of one of the
largest retail-oriented options brokerage firms indicated that on a
typical trading day, options orders were entered with respect to
5,922 different customer accounts. There was only one order entered
with respect to 3,765 of the 5,922 different customer accounts on
this day, and there were only 17 customer accounts with respect to
which more than ten orders were entered. The highest number of
orders entered with respect to any one account over the course of an
entire week was 27).
    \22\ The similarity of the Exchange's proposed Professional
order definition to that of other options exchanges is important
from the regulatory perspective, that is from a desire to promote a
national market system that minimizes regulatory arbitrage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \23\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \24\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of
a free and open market and a national market system, by defining
Professional and indicating that all Professional orders shall be
appropriately marked by Options Members. The Exchange believes that the
proposal is particularly consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\25\ with respect to removal of impediments to, and perfection the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system,
because the proposed changes will provide for consistent regulation for
Options Members that are members of other SROs with analogous rules, as
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that disparate rules regarding
Professional order designation, and a lack of uniform application of
such rules, do not promote the best regulation and may, in fact,
encourage regulatory arbitrage. The Exchange believes that it is
therefore prudent and necessary to have a Professional designation rule
as is commonplace in the industry, particularly where BATS Trading or
the Exchange's third-party routing broker-dealers (like other Options
Members) are members of several exchanges that

have rules requiring Professional order designations. The designation
of Professional orders would not result in any different treatment of
such orders for purposes of the Exchange's Rules concerning order
protection or routing to Away Exchanges. That is, all non broker or
dealer orders, including those that meet the definition of Professional
orders, would continue to be treated as Public Customers for purposes
of the Exchange's Rules regarding order protection and routing to Away
Exchanges. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \26\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 Number SR-BATS-2011-041 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2011-041. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2011-041 and should be
submitted on or before November 3, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-26437 Filed 10-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 393-396]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28315]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471; FRL-5562-08-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS26

Clean Air Act Section 112 List of Hazardous Air Pollutant:
Amendments to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the
list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under Clean Air Act (CAA) to add
1-bromopropane (1-BP) in response to public petitions previously
granted by the EPA. This action amends the list of hazardous air
pollutants initially listed under the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. All documents in the docket are
listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket
materials are available electronically in https://www.regulations.gov/.
Out of an

abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment
only to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center
staff also continues to provide remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. The EPA continues to carefully and continuously
monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, local area health departments, and our Federal partners so
that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets or call the
Public Reading Room at<PHONE_NUMBER> or the EPA Docket Center at (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Susan Miller, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected]. You may also consult your state or local
permitting representative or the appropriate EPA Regional office
representative.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What does this final rule do?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Why is the EPA issuing this final rule?

    Having previously granted petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA HAP
list, this current action is the final step in granting petitioners'
request. Per CAA section 112(b)(3)(B), the Administrator ``shall add a
substance to the list upon a showing by the petitioner or on the
Administrator's own determination that the substance is an air
pollutant, and that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation
or deposition of the substance are known to cause or may reasonably be
anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse
environmental effects.'' On June 18, 2020, the EPA published its final
decision to grant the petitions from two entities to list 1-BP. See 85
FR 36851. This final rule completes the listing action required when a
petition is granted.
    Having previously published the rationale for the decision to grant
these petitions and provided an opportunity for public review and
comment, the EPA has determined that there is good cause for amending
the CAA HAP list without additional need for public review and comment.
This final rule merely codifies a decision that was made in the June
2020 granting notice; therefore, we believe any additional public
notice and comment is duplicative, unnecessary, and would serve no
useful purpose.

B. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 112(e)(4), the Administrator's decision to add a
pollutant to the CAA HAP list is not a final Agency action subject to
judicial review, except that any such action may be reviewed when the
Administrator promulgates emission standards for the pollutant.
Accordingly, the decision to add 1-BP to the HAP list is not subject to
judicial review until the Administrator promulgates applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards that address emissions of 1-BP.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    The CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) specifies that any person may petition
the Administrator to modify the list of HAP contained in CAA section
112(b)(1), otherwise known as the CAA HAP list,\1\ by adding or
deleting a substance. CAA section 112(b)(3)(B) sets out the substantive
criteria for granting a petition. It calls for the Administrator to add
a substance to the CAA section 112(b)(1) list, ``upon a showing by the
petitioner or on the Administrator's own determination that the
substance is an air pollutant and that emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse
effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.'' The
Administrator is required under the CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to either
grant or deny a petition within 18 months of the receipt of a complete
petition by publishing a written explanation of the reasons for the
Administrator's decision. The Administrator may not deny a petition
based solely on inadequate resources or time for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The CAA HAP list is a list or organic and inorganic
substances that Congress identified as HAP in the 1990 CAA
Amendments. CAA section 112(b)(1). These HAP are associated with a
wide variety of adverse health effects, including, but not limited
to cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects, and
developmental effects. The health effects associated with various
HAP differ depending upon the toxicity of the individual HAP and the
particular circumstances of exposure, such as the amount of chemical
present, the length of time a person is exposed and the stage of
life at which the person is exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the first occasion on which the EPA is adding a substance
to the CAA HAP list that Congress created in 1990. Since 1990, the EPA
has amended the CAA HAP list four times to remove or delist a HAP. They
are caprolactam (61 FR 30816; June 18, 1996); ethylene glycol monobutyl
ether (69 FR 69320; November 29, 2004); surfactant alcohol ethoxylates
and their derivatives (these are compounds that were considered to be
included in glycol ethers, which is a listed HAP); (65 FR 47342; August
2, 2000); and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (70 FR 75047; December 19,
2005)). The EPA has also denied a petition to remove methanol from the
CAA HAP list (66 FR 21929; May 2, 2001).

B. What is the history of the listing process for 1-BP?

    The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) and New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted
petitions requesting that the EPA add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1)
HAP list on October 28, 2010, and November 24, 2011, respectively.\2\
On November 28, 2012, in response to the EPA's requests for additional
data, HSIA supplemented its petition. Following the receipt of these
petitions and supplemental data, the EPA conducted a review to
determine whether the petitions were complete according to Agency
criteria for the CAA section 112(b)(3) actions, which we explained in
the February 6, 2015, document (80 FR 6676). Specifically, the EPA
determined that these petitions and supplemental data addressed all the
necessary subject areas for the Agency to assess whether emissions,
ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of 1-BP are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse human
health effects or adverse environmental effects. On February 6, 2015,
the EPA determined these petitions to be complete and published a
notification of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal Register
(80 FR 6676), that invited the public to comment on the technical
merits of these petitions and to submit any information relevant to the
technical review of these petitions. Further, on March 11, 2015 (80 FR

12794), the EPA extended the comment period for the notification of
receipt of complete petitions to May 7, 2015. Subsequently, on January
9, 2017, the EPA published a draft notice in the Federal Register (82
FR 2354) containing the Agency's intended rationale for granting these
petitions and solicited public comments on the rationale. In the draft
notice, the EPA determined that these petitions met criteria specified
in the CAA section 112(b)(3)(B): i.e., 1-BP is an air pollutant and its
emissions and ambient concentrations ``may reasonably be anticipated to
cause adverse effects to human health.'' Further, on June 6, 2017, the
EPA extended the comment period until October 1, 2017, in response to
the request by Albemarle Corporation, a U.S.-based manufacturer of 1-
BP, that the Agency provide an opportunity for prospective commenters
to review the 2017 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which included newly
required reporting of 1-BP emissions. (82 FR 26091). On June 18, 2020,
the EPA granted these petitions after reviewing and addressing public
comments received on the draft notice containing the Agency's intended
rationale for granting them. (85 FR 36851).\3\ Finally, on June 11,
2021, the EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM), Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean Air Act Section 112 HAP
List, that solicited data and comments on the potential regulatory
impacts of the addition of a HAP to the Section 112 HAP list. (86 FR
31225).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation petitions
referred to the chemical as n-propyl bromide and 1-bromopropane.
    \3\ On August 17, 2020, California Communities Against Toxics,
Sierra Club and Gasp filed a petition for judicial review of the
agency's decision to grant petitions that did not list 1-BP as a HAP
under CAA section 112(b)(1). California Communities Against Toxics
v. EPA, Case No. 20-1311 (D.C. Circuit). The State of New York is an
intervenor on behalf of petitioners. This case is currently being
held in abeyance and motions to govern further proceedings are now
due on February 7, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the information and comments received in response to the
ANPRM, the Agency determined that a separate regulation is needed to
ensure the effective and efficient implementation of requirements
triggered by the addition of a new HAP. The Agency has thus begun
working on a separate regulatory ``infrastructure'' to address the
impacts, implications, and requirements associated with the addition of
a new HAP to the HAP list. In the meantime, the Agency has also
determined that additional guidance may be needed on the listing of 1-
BP and intends to publish such guidance upon promulgation of this rule.

C. What is 1-BP?

    The compound 1-BP or n-propyl bromide (nPB),\4\ CAS #106-94-5, is a
brominated organic colorless liquid that is insoluble in water but
soluble in ethanol and ether. Both petitioners and public commenters
provided background information regarding 1-BP's chemical properties,
physical properties, production, and usage as a part of the 1-BP
petition granting process. [See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471].
Applications of 1-BP include solvent cleaning in electronic, metal, and
precision cleaning operations; aerosols; adhesives; and as an
intermediate chemical in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and
agricultural products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For this action and for future regulations under the CAA,
the EPA will refer to the chemical identified by CAS No. 106-94-5 as
1-bromopropane or 1-BP. The EPA notes that in an action published on
November 23, 2015, the EPA added the chemical by the name 1-BP to
the Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting
requirements. In addition, the chemical is listed in the EPA's
Substance Registry Services, EPA's authoritative resource for basic
information about chemicals, as 1-BP. Finally, the chemical's final
risk evaluation is currently undergoing reconsideration pursuant to
Toxic Substances Control Act Section 6(a), under Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2015-0084 as 1-BP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What does this final rule do?

    This final rule will amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart C, to add 1-BP
to the list of CAA section 112 HAP. The effective date of the addition
is February 4, 2022. Once added to the HAP list, 1-BP will become
subject to regulation under CAA section 112. (``EPA has a clear
statutory obligation under the statute to set emission standards for
each listed HAP.'' National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634
(D.C. Cir. 2000)). There is no specific period for promulgating
standards for newly listed HAPs under CAA section 112(b)(1).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it was
determined that it raised ``novel legal or policy issues.'' Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. This action will have no direct immediate impacts under 40 CFR
part 63 on emissions of 1-BP, but the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list
could have immediate impacts to facilities that emit 1-BP (e.g., the
operating permits program under title V of the CAA).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that
the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
has no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This
regulatory action is ministerial in nature as it codifies a decision to
list 1-BP as a HAP that was made when the petitions to list were
granted. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This action imposes no enforceable duty on
any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The action presents no additional burden on
implementing authorities beyond existing requirements. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, the EPA held two
meetings with tribes to explain this action. The first meeting occurred
on June 29, 2020, immediately after the petitions to add 1-BP were
granted. The second meeting followed the June 11, 2021, publication of
the ANPRM for 1-BP (86 FR 31225).

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. This action codifies a decision to list
1-BP as a HAP that was made when petitions were granted in 2020.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is
ministerial in nature as it codifies a decision to list 1-BP as a HAP
that was made when petitions were granted in 2020 and does not have any
direct impact on human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to Subtitle E of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the
issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided
by the CRA if the agency for good cause finds that notice and public
procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause
finding for this rule in section I of this preamble, including the
basis for that finding.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
General Provisions, Hazardous substances.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add Sec.  63.64 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  63.64  Additions of substances to the list of hazardous air
pollutants.

    (a) The substance 1-bromopropane, or 1-BP, also known as n-propyl
bromide or nPB (CAS No. 106-94-5) is added to the list of hazardous air
pollutants established by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(b)(1), 42
U.S.C. 7412(b)(1).
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2021-28315 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47591-47593]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21995]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81825; File No. SR-BatsBYX-2017-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Transaction Fees

October 5, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 29, 2017, Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to add a new tier
under footnote 1, Add/Remove Volume Tiers. The Exchange currently
offers seven tiers under footnote 1 that offer reduced fees for
displayed orders that yield fee codes B,\6\ V \7\ and Y,\8\ and an
enhanced rebate for orders that remove liquidity yielding fee codes
BB,\9\ N \10\ and W.\11\ The Exchange proposes to add a new tier under
footnote 1, to be known as Tier 6,\12\ under which a Member would be
charged a reduced fee of $0.0017 per share on orders that yield fee
codes B, V and Y, where that Member's Market Participant Identifier
(``MPID'') has an ADAV \13\ equal to or greater than 0.10% of the TCV
\14\ and a Step-Up ADAV equal to or greater than 0.05% of the TCV from
a September 2017 baseline.\15\ The Exchange proposes to implement the
above changes to its fee schedule on October 2, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee code B is appended to displayed orders that add
liquidity to BYX (Tape B) and is assessed a fee of $0.0018 per
share. See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \7\ Fee code V is appended to displayed orders that add
liquidity to BYX (Tape A) and is assessed a fee of $0.0018 per
share. Id.
    \8\ Fee code Y is appended to displayed orders that add
liquidity to BYX (Tape C) and is assessed a fee of $0.0018 per
share. Id.
    \9\ Fee code BB is appended to orders that remove liquidity from
BYX (Tape B) and is assessed a rebate of $0.0010 [sic] per share.
Id.
    \10\ Fee code N is appended to orders that remove liquidity from
BYX (Tape C) and is assessed a rebate of $0.0010 [sic] per share.
Id.
    \11\ Fee code W is appended to orders that remove liquidity from
BYX (Tape A) and is assessed a rebate of $0.0010 [sic] per share.
See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \12\ With the addition of proposed Tier 6 under footnote 1, the
Exchange proposes to renumber current Tier 6 as Tier 7 and Tier 7 as
Tier 8.
    \13\ ADAV is defined as the average daily volume calculated as
the number of shares added per day and ``ADV'' means average daily
volume calculated as the number of shares added or removed,
combined, per day. See the Exchange fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/.
    \14\ TCV is defined as the total consolidated volume calculated
as the volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting
facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting plan for the
month for which the fees apply. Id.
    \15\ Step-Up ADAV is defined as the ADAV in the relevant
baseline month subtracted from current ADAV. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\16\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\17\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed tier under footnote
1 is equitable and reasonable because such pricing programs reward a
Member's growth pattern on the Exchange and such increased volume will
allow the Exchange to continue to provide and potentially expand the
its incentive programs. The Exchange believes that providing the
reduced rate to Members under proposed Tiers 6 is reasonable compared
to the more stringent requirements under other tiers in footnote 1 that
provide a further reduced rate. The Exchange further believes that the
proposed tier is reasonable, fair and equitable because the liquidity
from the proposed changes would benefit all investors by deepening the
Exchange's liquidity pool, offering additional flexibility for all
investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price
discovery, promoting market transparency and improving investor
protection. These pricing programs are also not unfairly discriminatory
in that it is available to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, volume-based fees such as that proposed herein have
been widely adopted by exchanges and are equitable because they are
open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits
or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to an
exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth
patterns; and (iii) the introduction of higher volumes of orders into
the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes that
the proposed tier is a reasonable, fair and equitable, and not an
unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates, because it will
provide Members with an additional incentive to reach certain
thresholds on the Exchange.

(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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that this change represents a significant departure from previous
pricing offered by the Exchange or from pricing offered by the
Exchange's competitors. The proposed rates would apply uniformly to all
Members, and Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. Further, excessive fees would serve
to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow and members
rather than burdening competition. The Exchange believes that its
proposal would not burden intramarket competition because the proposed
rate would apply uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBYX-2017-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBYX-2017-25. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-BatsBYX-2017-25 and should
be submitted on or before November 2, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21995 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49882-49884]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23369]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32867; File No. 812-14756]

PIMCO Funds, et al.

October 23, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an exemption
from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c)
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections
17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of
the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint
arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would
permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to
participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.

APPLICANTS: PIMCO Funds, PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust, PIMCO ETF
Trust, PIMCO Equity Series, PIMCO Equity Series VIT, PIMCO Managed
Accounts Trust, each an investment company organized as a Delaware
statutory trust or a Massachusetts business trust and registered under
the Act as an open-end management investment company, on behalf of all
existing series,\1\ and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (the
``Adviser''), a Delaware limited liability company registered as an
investment

adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Currently, one series of the Funds (as defined below) is a
money market fund that complies with Rule 2a-7 of the Act, and
applicants request that the order also apply to any future Fund that
is a money market fund that complies with rule 2a-7 of the Act (each
a ``Money Market Fund''). Money Market Funds typically will not
participate as borrowers under the interfund lending facility
because they rarely need to borrow cash to meet redemptions.

FILING DATES:  The application was filed on March 17, 2017 and amended
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on June 28, 2017 and October 16, 2017.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on November 17, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: Joshua Ratner,
Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, 1633 Broadway, New York, New
York 10019 and Robert W. Helm, Brendan C. Fox, Dechert LLP, 1900 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to
participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend
money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover
unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or
trade fails.\2\ The Funds will not borrow under the facility for
leverage purposes and the loans' duration will be no more than 7
days.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicants request that the order apply to the applicants
and to any existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof for which the Adviser or any
successor thereto or an investment adviser controlling, controlled
by, or under common control with the Adviser or any successor
thereto serves as investment adviser (each a ``Fund'' and
collectively the ``Funds'' and each such investment adviser an
``Adviser''). For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is
limited to any entity that results from a reorganization into
another jurisdiction or a change in the type of a business
organization.
    \3\ Any Fund, however, will be able to call a loan on one
business day's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a
borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank
borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is
insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds
making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn
interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from
investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short
term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the
facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would
administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its
duties under the investment management and administrative agreements
with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as compensation for
its services in connection with the administration of the facility.\4\
The facility would be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the
Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the interest rate
formula and of the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as
review of the process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications
for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not
exceed 15% of its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will
not exceed 5% of the lending Fund's net assets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Members of the designated committee may include one or more
investment professionals, including individuals involved in making
investment decisions regarding short-term investments.
    \5\ Under certain circumstances, a borrowing Fund will be
required to pledge collateral to secure the loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns
underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of
the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative
costs or fees to the Funds.\6\ Applicants also assert that the proposed
transactions do not raise the concerns underlying sections 17(a)(1),
17(a)(3), 17(d) and 21(b) of the Act as the Funds would not engage in
lending transactions that unfairly benefit insiders or are detrimental
to the Funds. Applicants state that the facility will offer both
reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all
participating Funds and each Fund would have an equal opportunity to
borrow and lend on equal terms based on an interest rate formula that
is objective and verifiable. With respect to the relief from section
17(a)(2) of the Act, applicants note that any collateral pledged to
secure an interfund loan would be subject to the same conditions
imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the
quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is
another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other
circumstance).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Applicants state that the obligation to repay an interfund
loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of
sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act.
    \7\ Applicants state that any pledge of securities to secure an
interfund loan could constitute a purchase of securities for
purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section
18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility
(because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of
the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because
the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section
18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined
interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part

of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent
with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and
(c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of
the Act. Rule 17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an
application filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether
the participation of the registered investment company in a joint
enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis
proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of
the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of the other
participants.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23369 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24930-24933]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08899]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0610; FRL-9081-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; NC; NC BART Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision,
submitted through a letter dated April 13, 2021, proposing changes to
North Carolina's SIP-approved rule addressing best available retrofit
technology (BART) for regional haze. EPA proposes to approve North
Carolina's SIP revision because the changes are consistent with Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2021-0610, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze and Regional Haze SIPs

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
(e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil
dust) and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and
volatile organic compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the
atmosphere to form PM2.5 which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment (i.e., light
scattering) reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one
can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects
(including premature death, heart attacks, irregular heartbeat,
aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory
symptoms) and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental
effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in 156 national parks and
wilderness areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas.
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues, and EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), codified at
40 CFR 51.308,\1\ on July 1, 1999.\2\ The RHR established a requirement
to submit a regional haze SIP which applies to all 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to the generally applicable regional haze
provisions at 40 CFR 51.308, EPA also promulgated regulations
specific to addressing regional haze visibility impairment in Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau at 40 CFR 51.309. The latter
regulations are therefore not relevant here.
    \2\ See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). On January 10, 2017, EPA
promulgated revisions to the RHR that apply for the second and
subsequent implementation periods. See 82 FR 3078.
    \3\ 40 CFR 51.300(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regional haze visibility impairment, the RHR established
an iterative planning process that requires states in which Class I
areas are located and states from which emissions may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in a
Class I area to periodically submit SIP revisions to address regional
haze visibility impairment.\4\ Under the CAA, each SIP submission must
contain ``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal,'' and the initial
round of SIP submissions also had to address the statutory requirement
that certain older, larger sources of visibility-impairing pollutants
install and operate BART, as discussed further in Section I.B,
below.\5\ States' first regional haze SIPs were due by December 17,
2007, with subsequent SIP submissions containing revised long-term
strategies originally due July 31, 2018, and every ten years
thereafter.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (f); see also
64 FR 35768 (July 1, 1999). EPA established in the RHR that all
states either have Class I areas within their borders or ``contain
sources whose emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
regional haze in a Class I area;'' therefore, all states must submit
regional haze SIPs. See 64 FR 35721. In addition to each of the 50
states, EPA also concluded that the Virgin Islands and District of
Columbia contain a Class I area and/or contain sources whose
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute regional haze in
a Class I area. See 40 CFR 51.300(b) and (d)(3).
    \5\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A); 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e).
    \6\ See 40 CFR 51.308(b). The 2017 RHR revisions changed the
second period SIP due date from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021, and
maintained the existing schedules for the subsequent implementation
periods. See 40 CFR 51.308(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. BART

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. On
July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51
(hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist states
in the BART evaluation process. Under the RHR and the BART Guidelines,
the BART evaluation process consists of three steps: (1) An
identification of all BART-eligible sources, (2) an assessment of
whether the BART-eligible sources are subject to BART, and (3) a
determination of the BART controls.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e); BART Guidelines at I.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States must conduct BART determinations for all ``BART-eligible''
sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area, or in the alternative,
adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long
as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards
improving visibility than BART. In making a BART determination for a
fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set
forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is generally encouraged, but not
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in other aspects.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For additional details regarding the three steps of the BART
evaluation process, see, e.g., 85 FR 47134, 47136-37 (August 4,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emissions
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional
haze SIP. See CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a)(2).
    States undertook the BART determination process during the first
implementation period. The BART requirement was a one-time requirement.
BART-eligible sources may need to be re-assessed for additional
controls in future implementation periods under the CAA's reasonable
progress provisions. States should treat BART-eligible sources the same
as other reasonable progress sources going forward. See 81 FR 26942,
26947 (May 4, 2016).
2. Summary of BART Sources in North Carolina
    In the State's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan for the first
implementation period, North Carolina identified 17 BART-eligible
sources (six electric generating units (EGUs) and eleven non-EGUs) in
the State. The non-EGUs submitted BART-exemption modeling
demonstrations for NOX, SO2, and particulate
matter (PM) as applicable to individual facilities. Nine of the 11 non-
EGU sources demonstrated that they are not subject to BART by modeling
less than the State's BART-exemption visibility impact threshold of 0.5
deciviews. The EGUs relied on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \9\
as a BART alternative for NOX and SO2 and
submitted BART-exemption modeling demonstrations for PM. All of the
EGUs demonstrated that they are not subject to BART for PM by modeling
less than the State's BART-exemption threshold. See 77 FR 11858, 11874
(February 28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 28 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including North Carolina, that
contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. CAIR is no longer in
effect is no longer in effect and has since been replaced by the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). CSAPR requires substantial
reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs
in 27 states in the Eastern United States that significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment of the 1997 PM2.5
and ozone NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. As discussed in Section II.B, below, EPA subsequently
approved North Carolina's reliance on its Clean Smokestacks Act as a
BART alternative in lieu of CAIR. See 81 FR 32652 (May 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina found that two non-EGUs (Blue Ridge Paper and PCS
Phosphate) had modeled visibility impacts greater than the State's 0.5
deciview BART contribution threshold. Therefore, these two facilities
were found subject to BART and submitted State permit applications
including their proposed BART determinations. PCS Phosphate
subsequently shut down its two sulfuric acid units subject to BART and
these units were not further evaluated. For Blue Ridge Paper, North
Carolina determined and EPA agreed that BART for the subject-to-BART
units (two recovery furnaces, their associated smelt dissolving tanks,
and the black liquor oxidation system) is the existing emissions
control systems in place at the time of that determination. See 77 FR
at 11874-75.

II. Summary and EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's SIP Revision

A. Summary of North Carolina's SIP Revision

    Through a letter dated April 13, 2021, and submitted to EPA on
April 14, 2021, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to modify its
SIP-approved rule at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D
.0543, Best Available Retrofit Technology (NC BART Rule), which applies
to BART-eligible sources. EPA incorporated this rule into North
Carolina's SIP as part of EPA's limited approval action on the State's
regional haze plan for the first implementation period. See 77 FR 38185
(June 27, 2012).
    The proposed revisions to the NC BART Rule include the following
changes. The submission removes 15A NCAC 02D .0543(g) because it is
outdated, requiring the submission of BART permit applications by
September 1, 2006. The submission also removes 15A NCAC 02D .0543(i)
which required owners or operators of BART-eligible sources required to
adopt BART controls in North Carolina to have installed and begun
operation of the BART controls by December 31, 2012. The revision also
renumbers .0543(h) to .0543(g) and removes the statement that EGUs
covered under and complying with 15A NCAC 02D .2400, Clean Air
Interstate Rules, are considered to be in compliance with the BART
requirements for NOX and SO2 under the NC BART
Rule. Additionally, the revisions update the provisions for accessing
EPA's Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities in a
renumbered provision under 15A NCAC 02D .0543(h) (formerly provision
(j)). The submission also includes non-substantive punctuation and
wording changes.

B. EPA's Evaluation of North Carolina's SIP Revision

1. NC BART Rule Revisions
    North Carolina elected to adopt the NC BART Rule to establish BART
requirements in response to federal requirements that states address
BART in their initial regional haze SIPs. The CAA and RHR do not
require states to develop state BART rules for incorporation into their
SIPs. Thus, changes to the NC BART Rule are approvable as long as North
Carolina continues to implement and enforce BART and the changes are
otherwise consistent with federal BART requirements. EPA proposes to
find that the rule changes are approvable for the reasons discussed
below.
    Regarding the removal of provisions under 15A NCAC 02D .0543, EPA
preliminarily agrees that provisions (g) and (i) can be removed because
the State-established due dates of September 1, 2006, and December 31,
2012, for submission of BART permit applications and installation and
operation of BART, respectively, have since passed and all subject
sources have met those requirements. Furthermore, the rule continues to
require the owner or operator of a BART-subject emissions unit to
install, operate, and maintain BART as approved by the State after BART
is incorporated into the unit's permit under 15A NCAC 02Q. See 15A NCAC
02D .0543(f).
    EPA preliminarily concurs with the removal of the reference to 15A
NCAC 02D .2400, Clean Air Interstate Rules, as a means to satisfy BART
for SO2 and NOX for covered EGUs in North
Carolina because EPA approved a SIP revision on October 31, 2014,
allowing the State to rely on its Clean Smokestacks Act as an
alternative to BART to satisfy BART requirements for BART-eligible EGUs
formerly subject to CAIR. See 81 FR 32652 (May 24, 2016).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To view EPA's full analysis of the October 31, 2014, North
Carolina SIP revision and additional details regarding the
relationship between BART and EPA's transport rules, see the notice
of proposed rulemaking at 81 FR 19519 (April 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA preliminarily concurs with the remainder of the changes to the
rule because they are editorial revisions that do not alter the
substance of the NC BART Rule.
    For the reasons described above, EPA preliminarily concludes that
the NC BART Rule changes do not alter the State's authority and ability
to continue to implement and enforce BART in North Carolina, are
consistent with federal BART requirements, and do not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See CAA Section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Review
    In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4), Section 11 of the State's
December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP contains procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of the
State's visibility protection program. North Carolina provided the SIP
revision to the FLMs to review pursuant to the State's regional haze
SIP and 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), and the FLMs have not provided any
comments.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference North Carolina rule 15A NCAC 02D .0543 entitled ``Best
Available Retrofit Technology,'' state effective November 1, 2020,
which removes outdated provisions and makes minor editorial changes.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve the SIP revision containing changes to 15
NCAC 02D .0543 because they are consistent with the BART requirements
set forth in the RHR and CAA and the applicable requirements in CAA
section 110.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: April 19, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-08899 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P