Information Collection Request

For the Revisions to 40 CFR Parts 72 & 75

Supporting Statement

1.0  Identification of the Information Collection

1.1  Title of the Information Collection

	Revisions to the Emissions Monitoring Rule under the Acid Rain Program,
NOx Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Programs, Transport
Rule Program; Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and
the Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing, EPA ICR
Number 2203.0, OMB Control Number 2060-0626

1.2  Background

	Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the Acid Rain Title)
established goals to reduce annual emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx), and placed a national cap on SO2 emissions
beginning in the year 2000.  To ensure compliance with the emissions
reduction requirements and to provide the national consistency needed to
foster the allowance market, Sections 408 and 412 of Title IV require
the designated representative of the owners and operators of each
affected acid rain source to obtain an operating permit for the affected
source and to certify that an approved emissions monitoring system has
been installed and is properly operated at each affected unit's source
of emissions.  In addition, under a Federal NOx Budget Trading Program
developed in conjunction with ozone attainment efforts in the eastern
United States, many additional sources also had to meet similar
requirements as part of a regional emissions trading program.  In May
2005, EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which has
broadened the trading program concept to additional sources. CAIR was
subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina (531 F.3d
896), and modified on rehearing, (550 F.3d. 1176).  The Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) was finalized in August 2011,
effectively ending CAIR at the end of 2011, with the Transport Rule
Program beginning in 2012.

	Emissions monitoring and reporting is the foundation upon which these
allowance trading systems are based.  Without accurate monitoring and
reporting of emissions, the integrity of the allowance system would be
undermined, and there would be no assurance that emissions had been
reduced.

	The legislative requirements in Title IV require all affected Phase I
and Phase II sources to install SO2 and NOx CEM systems, opacity
monitors (COMS), and flow monitors (or approved alternatives).  Affected
gas- and oil-fired units may elect to use approved alternative
monitoring methods that involve fuel flowmeters and fuel sulfur sampling
and analysis.  In addition, peaking units that burn natural gas and/or
fuel oil may use an excepted method for calculating NOx emission rates.
Finally, EPA allows certain low mass emissions (LME) units to use
assumed emission factors together with operational data to calculate
emissions.  EPA has followed similar requirements for new emissions
trading programs.

	Data handling or reporting is required by the law, but not specified.
Under the promulgated regulations, however, EPA imposes data handling,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.  EPA requires that all
affected units required to monitor and report emissions under these
trading programs use a data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) to
record and submit hourly data in an electronic format.  Beginning in
April 2009, electronic reporting is occurring in a recently developed
XML format using EPA's Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System
(ECMPS).  The burden associated with most of the Part 75 requirements,
including DAHS changes needed to use the ECMPS reporting approach, is
currently included in the program-specific ICR for all affected sources.

The rulemaking covered by this ICR outlines new, revised reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for facilities subject to Part 75.  The final
rule requires such facilities to follow requirements that assure that
facilities properly use Air Emission Testing Bodies (AETBs) that meet
certain standards and obtain EPA Protocol gas from vendors that
participate in EPA's Protocol Gas Verification Program (PGVP).  The PGVP
program requires any participating EPA protocol gas production site to
meet certain requirements and notify the Administrator of its intent to
participate on an annual basis.  Under the quality assurance and quality
control requirements, Part 75 facilities must use AETBs that meet the
revised requirements under Appendix A to Part 75, Section 6.1.2, which
includes a specification that the requirements (e.g., qualification
exams) of ASTM D7036-04 apply to RATAs, stack testing, and NOx emission
testing.  These new requirements clarify the documentation needed for
proof of compliance, including certification, quality assurance, and
quality control record provisions.  Some of these changes may in fact,
reduce the burden for sources and AETBs by streamlining the process.

This ICR covers the specific elements and burden that will result from
the new AETB requirements, including passing the Qualified Stack Test
Individual (QSTI) competency exam and development of a QA manual by
affected stack testing companies, and the new PGVP requirements
including annual notifications and re-notifications that include the
specialty gas company name; the name, e-mail address, and telephone
number of a contact person for that specialty gas company; the name and
address of each participating EPA Protocol gas production site owned or
operated by the specialty gas company; and the name, email address and
phone number of a contact person at each production site.  This ICR also
covers the burden associated with some minor changes to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Part 75.  The cost
incurred on affected sources (or respondents) will be in the form of
increased fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP,
which are expected to pass along the costs necessitated by the new
requirements in the final rule as well as the burden associated with
ensuring that the minor modifications to the requirements for reporting
AETB and PGVP related information to EPA are met on an ongoing basis.
This ICR also covers the one time Agency cost to implement the AETB and
PGVP changes to EPA reporting software, along with a small increase in
Agency burden to manage these programs and track compliance.

In addition to covering the increased fees and burden to Part 75 sources
resulting from the revisions to AETB and PGVP requirements, this ICR
also covers some additional reporting requirements.  These include
revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, that add various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the DAHS of Part 75 affected units and are required
to ensure that EPA's new reporting software data requirements are
consistent with the regulatory requirements.

1.3  Information to Be Collected

	The existing requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 are mandatory for all
sources subject to the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air
Act, as well as certain other emissions trading programs administered by
EPA.  These requirements are covered by existing ICRs for the Acid Rain
Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570), and the
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control
Number 2060-0667).  The information requirements in this ICR are based
on revisions to the minimum competency requirements for air emission
testing, and reflect the increase in costs to sources that need to pay
for services provided by stack testers and stack testing companies.  The
final rule contains some minor reporting and recordkeeping provisions
related to the AETB and PGVP requirements, and EPA assumes that there
will be a small additional burden associated with these requirements.
Thus, this ICR covers:  (1) the incremental increase in testing costs
that will be passed along to sources from air emission testing bodies
(i.e., stack testers and stack testing companies) due to the increased
burden resulting from revisions to the minimum competency requirements
for these companies; (2) the incremental increase in the cost of EPA
Protocol gas cylinders that will be passed along to sources from vendors
participating in PGVP due to the increased burden resulting from
revisions to the cylinder analysis, reporting and notification
requirements for these companies; (3) the one time labor burden for
sources to review the new requirements included in the rule; and (4) the
increase in burden to Part 75 affected sources for complying with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the
AETB and PGVP provisions.

	Nearly all burdens associated with Part 72 and 75 requirements for the
affected sources that report data, will remain covered by the underlying
ICRs of the existing programs.  The burden estimates under the existing
program ICRs will be adjusted accordingly to reflect the additional
burdens and costs summarized in this ICR when those existing program
ICRs are updated.  At that time, EPA will re-examine the overall
reporting and recordkeeping burdens generally under Part 75 as revised
by these AETB and PGVP-related requirements.

The annual respondent reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to be 2,306 labor hours, which results in an
associated annual cost of $183,642 and reflects the small amount of time
per year for respondents to review the updated rule requirements.  In
addition, there is an annual operations and maintenance-related cost to
respondents of $1,284,180 due to the expected increase in fees charged
by AETBs and vendors participating in PGVP resulting from the additional
requirements imposed by this final rule.  As such, the total annual cost
to respondents as a result of this final rule is estimated to be
$1,467,822.

2.0  Need For and Use of the Collection

	This section describes EPA's need for the information collection
described above and the legal authority for conducting collections.  The
users of collected information are also described.

2.1  Need/Authority for the Collection

	Section 412(a) of Title IV requires the use of CEM systems (or
alternative monitoring systems demonstrated to be equivalent) at each
affected unit's source of emissions.  Section 504(a) of Title V requires
that the results of any required monitoring be submitted to the
permitting authority no less often than every six months.  The
information collection is consistent with satisfying these minimum
statutory requirements.  EPA's model rules for implementation of CAIR
(40 CFR part 96, subparts AA-end) impose comparable requirements.

	Results of continuous emission monitoring system performance tests
allow EPA to certify that monitors perform well enough to produce
accurate emissions data.  Emissions data is used to monitor compliance
with emissions requirements under Title IV and other EPA trading
programs, and to provide a basis for analyzing progress in meeting air
quality objectives.

2.2  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	Data from emissions monitoring is indispensable to successful
implementation of EPA trading programs.  EPA can only monitor compliance
with and enforce these trading programs by having accurate emissions
data for each affected unit.

	Electric utilities, energy consultants, and power marketing companies
can use the emissions data to project future allowance costs and
availability.  Academic institutions can perform data modeling to
evaluate environmental benefits and estimate health effects of emissions
reductions.  EPA and other agencies use the data to try to correlate the
reduction of SO2 and NOx emissions with a decrease in acid precipitation
and ambient air quality pollutant levels, and also to measure the
impacts of other existing and proposed emissions trading programs.  The
emissions data provide the accountability to allow these trading
programs to function without more stringent command and control
approaches.

3.0  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	This section describes:  (1) efforts by EPA to learn whether the
information requested is available from other sources; (2) consultations
with respondents and data users to plan collections, monitor their
usefulness, and minimize the collection burden; (3) effects of less
frequent collections; and (4) any issues related to confidentiality.

3.1  Nonduplication

	All information requested from respondents under this ICR is required
by statute and/or regulation, and the majority of the associated burden
and costs of complying are covered by existing ICRs.  This ICR covers
the need for respondents to review the revisions to Part 75 and update
their recordkeeping and reporting procedures necessitated by changes in
the AETB and PGVP requirements and to pay for any increase in testing
fees or cylinder costs that result from those requirements.

3.2  Consultations

	As part of the ECMPS project, EPA has met with many stakeholders and
received input on the changes under consideration and the timetable for
action.  Stakeholder input is already reflected within the Part 75 rule
revisions that add simple recordkeeping requirements to allow EPA to
verify that: 1) Part 75 affected units are using Qualified Individuals
and AETBs that meet the rule requirements; and 2) Part 75 affected units
are using gas cylinders from EPA Protocol gas production sites that are
participating in the PGVP.  In addition, EPA contacted two stack testing
companies and two gas supply companies to obtain information on the
potential increase in fees and cylinder costs.  The feedback received
from these consultations was incorporated into the estimates for burden
and cost.

3.3  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	The general schedule for submissions is established in the underlying
emissions trading programs.  The minimal data elements imposed by these
rule revisions are consistent with the process established and
implemented generally for all other Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting
elements and enables sources to build these minimal requirements into
their basic Part 75 reporting process.

3.4  Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions

	Information collected through this activity is not confidential or of a
sensitive nature.

4.0  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	This section lists the major categories of businesses that participate
in EPA-administered emissions trading programs, the data items requested
from program participants, and the activities in which the participants
must engage to assemble or submit the required data items.

4.1  Respondents/NAICS Codes

	Entities regulated by this action primarily are fossil fuel-fired
boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that serve generators that
produce electricity, generate steam, or cogenerate electricity and
steam.  Although for the Acid Rain Program, Part 75 primarily regulates
the electric utility industry, certain state and Federal NOx mass
emission trading programs rely on Subpart H of Part 75, and those
programs may include industrial boilers, turbines, and combined cycle
units, and certain process units from other industries (such as refinery
process heaters or cement kilns).

4.2  Information Requested

	This section lists the data items requested from affected sources for
the collection described in this ICR.  This section also defines the
activities in which respondents must engage to assemble, submit, or
store these data items.

4.2.1  Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

	There are a small number of new data items requested from respondents
under the final rule.  These include revisions to §§75.53, 75.58, and
75.59, that add various data elements that were inadvertently left out
of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule and the January 24, 2008 final
rule.  These data elements have already been incorporated in the DAHS of
Part 75 affected units and are required to ensure that EPA's new
reporting software data requirements are consistent with the regulatory
requirements.  As such, the incremental changes to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements add only a small additional burden for sources.
This ICR covers the small one-time burden associated with the
respondents' review of the Part 75 revisions included in the final rule,
the small annual burden associated with ensuring compliance with the
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and the marginal
increase in fees charged by AETBs and vendors participating in the PGVP
to respondents (i.e., the increase that can be attributed to the new
testing competency requirements in the rule and the new cylinder
analysis, reporting and notification requirements for PGVP vendors).

	Emissions monitoring requirements specify that affected sources must:
(1) submit a monitoring plan for each affected unit at a source; (2)
submit data for certification of each monitor; and (3) record hourly
operational, pollutant monitor, and flow monitor data for each affected
unit and submit quarterly reports of their emissions data to EPA.
Respondents are required by 40 CFR 75.64 to submit the quarterly
emissions data electronically, by direct electronic submission to EPA,
and must also include a certification statement by the designated
representative of the unit.  Under the 2002 rule revisions, EPA requires
the certification statement to be submitted electronically unless it
approves a hardcopy submission.  All records are to be kept for three
years.

	4.2.2  Respondent Activities

	The primary tasks that are performed by respondents to meet the
emissions monitoring requirements are:  (1) completing and submitting
appropriate monitoring plan forms for each affected source and each
affected unit at a source; (2) conducting tests to certify the operation
of monitors, and submitting test results to EPA; (3) recording hourly
emissions data (this activity generally is performed electronically);
(4) operation and maintenance activities associated with the monitoring,
including quality assurance activities; (5) assuring data quality,
preparing quarterly reports of emissions data and submitting these
reports to EPA; and (6) responding to error messages generated by EPA as
a part of automated data checks or electronic audits, or to field audits
conducted by EPA.  In addition, respondents must purchase the necessary
monitoring hardware (or pay for fuel sampling and analysis in some
cases) and purchase the electronic data reporting software (or software
upgrades).

	This ICR covers the marginal increase in burden associated with
respondents' review of the new requirements in the rule, the marginal
increase in burden associated with ensuring compliance with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., to report AETB and
PGVP-related information along with other emissions data), and the
marginal increase in fees imposed on respondents by AETBs and PGVP
vendors as necessitated by changes in EPA's requirements for
verification of AETB (including Qualified Individuals) and cylinder
analysis, notification and re-notification from vendors participating in
PGVP.

5.0  The Information Collected -- Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

	The first part of this section describes Agency (EPA) activities
related to the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the
information collected from designated representatives of affected
sources that are required to submit monitoring and emissions data.  The
second part describes the information management techniques employed to
increase the efficiency of collections.  The third part discusses the
burden or benefits of the collection activities described in this ICR to
small entities.  The last part outlines the schedule for collecting
information.

5.1  Agency Activities

	The major EPA activities related to emissions monitoring and reporting
include:  (1) reviewing monitoring plans and certification applications;
and (2) processing, reviewing and evaluating reports of quarterly
emissions data from affected units.  These activities are covered by
existing ICRs.  This ICR includes the incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, annually posting cylinder analysis results,
reviewing the reported EPA Protocol gas production sites, and
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA staff
will maintain a list of participating PGVP vendors (and will update that
list on an as-needed, ongoing basis) on EPA's website.

In addition to the annual costs above EPA, will incur a one-time upfront
cost associated with the modification of the agency reporting software
to accommodate and validate the new AETB and PGVP data elements.

5.2  Collection Methodology and Management

	To ensure consistency nationwide and to expedite (1) data entry, (2)
the allocation of allowances, and (3) permit issuance, EPA requires that
standard reporting forms or equivalent formats or standard electronic
reporting formats be used to submit all information to be collected
under this ICR.  In 2008, EPA made revisions to Part 75 monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to accord with the fundamental
changes in EPA's data systems, which are designed to unify and simplify
data reporting, as well as to provide flexibility to respondents.  EPA
also has established the Clean Air Markets Home Page on the Internet,
which includes detailed information collected from emissions reports.
Those without access to the Internet may use the Acid Rain Hotline to
request information.  EPA will maintain a current list of PGVP vendors
that is posted and maintained on EPA's website.  Sources may use this
list to ensure that they are purchasing EPA Protocol gas cylinders from
a participating vendor.

5.3  Small Entity Flexibility

	For purposes of this ICR, a small entity is defined as:  (1) A small
business as defined by the SBA's regulations at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=28040ec960b490ca0aafa21f4
6de6efc&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=16&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=13%20CFR%20121.201&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLb
Vlb-zSkAl&_md5=20cdd3754bc5031f8663e9a8648d753a"  13 CFR 121.201 ; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of
the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and address
regulatory alternatives "which minimize any significant economic impact
of the rule on small entities."    HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=17&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20603&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=7706f7a5b57e6c8ffe73a18a42323923"  5 U.S.C. 603  and
HYPERLINK
"http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=029eb2ac646aec65a263af3d0
12c208e&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b73%20FR%20
4312%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=18&_butInline=1
&_butinfo=5%20USC%20604&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=2&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-z
SkAW&_md5=d18efe794c4aab9071be778414940e8e"  604 .  Thus, an agency may
certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the small entities can pass
through costs to their customers or rate payers, if the rule generally
does not regulate small entities, or the rule relieves regulatory burden
or otherwise generally has a positive economic effect on all of the
small entities subject to the rule.

The marginal increase in burden that is estimated in this ICR will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.  Nearly all affected sources are large electric generating
facilities that will face an incremental increase in cost associated
with very small increases in the testing fees charged by AETBs and PGVP
vendors.  For AETBs, the main costs to comply with the ASTM D7036-04
standard are associated with taking a qualified stack test individual
competency exam, and developing or revising a quality assurance manual.
PGVP vendors will be required to have a small number of their cylinders
analyzed each year, and provide annual notification to EPA staff with
basic information on their facility and other information relevant to
the PGVP.  The costs will be passed through to the customers, which are
generally Part 75 affected sources, including large electric utility and
industrial companies.

5.4  Collection Schedule

	Under Part 75, monitoring plans must be submitted initially, and at
subsequent intervals if elements of the monitoring plan change over
time.  Quarterly reports are due for each quarter during the life of
this information collection request.  In addition, Part 75 provides for
notifications to the Agency for semi-annual or annual quality assurance
testing and for situations where a unit will have a revised
certification deadline (for example, notifications of unit start-up for
new units).  This collection schedule is provided for under existing
ICRs.  The minimal AETB and PGVP-related reporting elements as well as
the small number of additional reporting elements in the final rule are
included within this basic Part 75 reporting framework so that sources
can adapt their reports to add these minimal elements easily into their
existing processes.

6.0  Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collections

	This section estimates the annual paperwork burden and cost to sources
for adapting their recordkeeping and reporting systems to the revised
requirements.  The information requirements in this ICR are based on the
revisions to the AETB and PGVP requirements as well as the minor
additions to required reporting data elements.  The estimates in this
ICR reflect the increase in burden to the AETBs and PGVP vendors that
will be necessitated by these new requirements and passed on to Part 75
sources in the form of increased testing fees (i.e., for using AETB’s
that meet ASTM D7036-04) and increased costs associated with EPA
Protocol gas purchases.  In addition, the estimates in this ICR reflect
a small burden to Part 75 sources for a one-time rule review and an
incremental increase in the annual burden associated with minor
modifications to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., for
tracking AETB and PGVP-related information and data).

6.1  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The primary tasks performed by AETBs as a result of the final rule are
to comply with the ASTM D7036-04, which includes:  (1) taking a
qualified stack test individual competency exam; and (2) developing or
revising a quality assurance manual.  The primary tasks performed by
vendors participating in EPA's PGVP as a result of the final rule are to
have a small number of their cylinders analyzed with results reported to
EPA, and provide an annual notification to EPA.  Although AETBs and PGVP
vendors are not considered to be respondents to which the ICR
requirements apply, the resulting increase in costs to comply with these
requirements will be passed on to Part 75 sources in the form of
increased fees.

For affected sources, the final rule contains some minor reporting and
recordkeeping provisions related to the AETB and PGVP requirements and
also requires a small number of other additional data elements to be
reported.  For the AETB-related requirements, sources need to record and
report the following information as provided by the AETB in electronic
and hardcopy format:  the name, telephone number and e-mail address
associated with the AETB and the name of the on-site Qualified
Individual.  Also, for the reference method(s) that were performed,
sources need to report the date that the Qualified Individual has passed
the relevant qualification exam(s) required by ASTM D 7036-04; and the
name and email address of the qualification exam provider; and
certificate of accreditation or interim accreditation for the relevant
test method issued by a recognized national accreditation body or a
letter of certification for the relevant test methods signed by a member
of the senior management staff of the AETB (recordkeeping only in
electronic or hardcopy format).  For the PGVP-related reporting
requirements, sources need to report certain information for the mid- or
high-level EPA Protocol gas (as applicable) that is used for daily
calibration error tests, the low-, mid-, and high-level gases used for
quarterly linearity checks (the information required (see (1) through
(5) below) is reported for each gas monitor and for both low and high
measurement ranges), and the EPA protocol gases used during RATA
performance tests.  Note that for O2, instead of reporting this
information, if purified air is used as the high-level gas for daily
calibrations or linearity checks, sources need to record the following
information for the low- and mid-level EPA Protocol gas used for
linearity checks:

(1) Gas level code;

(2) A code for the type of EPA Protocol gas used;

(3) The PGVP vendor ID issued by EPA for the EPA Protocol gas production
site that supplied the EPA Protocol gas cylinder;

(4) The expiration date for the EPA Protocol gas cylinder; and

(5) The cylinder number.

Since the procedures and systems allowing for these data to be reported
are already in place and being used, EPA has assumed that the burden
associated with these additional reporting requirements are relatively
small.  As EPA renews the underlying ICRs for Part 75 [i.e., the Acid
Rain Program (ICR No. 1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258), and the
Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control
Number 2060-0667)], EPA will reevaluate the burden associated with these
reporting activities in conjunction with reviewing the estimated burdens
for all other aspects of Part 75 recordkeeping and reporting.

6.2  Estimating Respondent Costs

	The annual respondent costs will consist of:  1) the costs associated
with a small labor burden for sources to review the new requirements
included in the final rule and comply with the modified reporting
requirements; and 2) the marginal increase in fees resulting from the
new AETB and PGVP requirements.  To estimate labor costs, EPA used the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-specific
Occupational Wage Estimates (May 2010) for the Engine and Turbines
Industry under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 351 and
increased by a factor of 1.6 to account for benefits and overhead.  A
reference between the applicable SIC and NAICS codes used to update
hourly rates for this ICR is available on the BLS website at:
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm%2317-0000"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm#17-0000 .  The mean hourly
rate of $81.51 used for this ICR is based on an even split between the
following two labor categories:  Mechanical Engineers (SOC Code 17-2141)
of $39.65($63.44 when increased by a factor of 1.6) and Lawyers (SOC
Code 23-1011) of $62.23 ($99.57 when increased by a factor of 1.6).

6.3  Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

	EPA estimates that there will be an incremental additional burden
associated with maintaining and updating the list of vendors that
participate in the PGVP, and associated with reviewing the reported
credentials of Qualified Individuals associated with an AETB.  EPA will:

1.  Review PGVP applications, post the PGVP participants on Agency web
sites, and make adjustments as needed;

2.  Review and post cylinder analysis results; and

3.  Develop and implement annual work assignments for obtaining
cylinders for auditing purposes.

4.  One time update to the Agency reporting software.

EPA estimates that one staff person will need to spend a total of 100
hours per year to complete these tasks.  In addition, there will be a
one-time burden of 600 hours associated with software programming that
will be necessary to ensure that each Part 75 stack test has basic
information for the corresponding AETB and Qualified Individual.  EPA
estimates a burden of 40 hours per year to review and resolve any issues
or problems associated with ensuring that the AETB and Qualified
Individual information is both accurate and current.

Government cost is based on GS-13 salary for professional engineers
($44.65/hr), adjusted by a factor of 1.6 to account for government
benefits, resulting in a final rate of $71.44/hr.  The hourly rate was
obtained from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Salary Table
2011-GS" (http://www.opm.gov/oca/11tables/html/gs_h.asp).  Agency time
is estimated for managing the PGVP (which encompass all four activities
listed above) in Table 1 below.  Note that there are no capital or
operation and maintenance costs associated with the Agency burden.

Table 1

Agency Burden and Cost

Information Collection Activity	Number of Responses 	Labor Cost Per
Response ($71.44/hr)	Hours Per Response	Total Hours Per Year	Total Cost
Per Year

Manage PGVP 	50	$142.88	2	100	$7,144

Software Programming for AETB	1	$14,288.00	200	200	$14,288

Quality Assurance for AETB Information	5	$571.52	8	40	$2,858

TOTAL	340	$24,290

6.4  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

EPA used a combination of the existing Acid Rain Program (ICR No.
1633.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0258),the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(ICR 2152.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0570), and Federal Implementation
Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Transport Rule) (ICR 2391.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0667)  to
estimate the total number of respondents, labor costs, and O&M costs to
determine impacts of the rule.  It should be noted that in preparation
of this ICR the EPA confirmed estimates of the time required to comply
with reporting requirements, taking into account respondents' adoption
of flexible measure and electronic reporting tools. Based on these
previously established numbers EPA estimates that there are total of
1,537 facilities that will be respondents affected by the requirements
of the rule.  This includes facilities affected by both ARP, CAIR, and
the Transport Rule.  Each of these respondents will be subject to a
total one-time burden of three hours (i.e., one hour per year during the
time period covered by this ICR) to review the rule requirements as well
as an annual burden of one-half hour to ensure compliance with the
modified recordkeeping and reporting requirements (as described in
Section 6.1 above) at mean hourly labor cost of $81.51,which results in
a total annual cost of $183,642 (See Table 2 below).

Table 2

Burden Cost to Respondents

Information Collection Activity	Mean Hourly Rate	Hours per Activity/

Year	Number of Respondents

(Facilities)	Respondent Hours/Year	Total Labor Cost per Year

ARP Respondents One Time Rule Review	$81.51 	1	1,249	1,249	$101,806

ARP Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements	$81.51
0.5	1,249	625	$50,903

CAIR Respondents One Time Rule Review

● Non ARP NBP[1] Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$81.51 	1	138	138	$11,248

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$81.51 	1	104	104	$8,477

● Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51 	1	10	10
$815

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$81.51 	1	1	1
$82

CAIR Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting Requirements

● Non ARP NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51
	0.5	138	69	$5,624

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in PM/O3 and PM Only States (Facilities)
$81.51 	0.5	104	52	$4,239

● Non ARP NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities) 	$81.51 	0.5	10	5
$408

● Non ARP non-NBP Sources in O3 Only States (Facilities)	$81.51 	0.5	1
1	$41

Cont.

Transport Rule Respondents One time Rule Review (Not Previously Affected
by CAIR)

Facilities not previously affected in Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma	$81.51 	1	35	35	$2,853

Transport Rule Respondents Compliance with Modified Reporting
Requirements (Not Previously Affected by CAIR)

Facilities not previously affected in Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Oklahoma	$81.51 	0.5	35	18	$1,426

Total	1,537	2,306	$183,642

In addition to the respondent burden associated with rule review and
compliance with the modified reporting requirements, EPA estimated the
burden associated with increased annual quality-assurance and
maintenance for each unit.  Based on information provided by stack
testing firms, a conservative one percent increase was applied to the
previously established annual O&M costs per unit at each respondent
facility. This is based on the average stack testing industry costs of
preparing a QA/QC manual ($6,000), obtaining QSTI certification
($1,200),  and annual operating costs of maintaining the quality control
system ($5,000 – $50,000 depending on size).  The increased stack
testing overhead costs translate into an increased performance test cost
of $68 to $549 per RATA test depending on the size of the company. The
increase cost per test drops even further if applied to all types of
tests performed by typical stack testing companies.

	The PGVP vendors that were contacted estimated an increased cost of two
dollars or less per cylinder.  This estimate was derived from
correspondence with both large and small specialty gas companies, who
based their estimates on the number of cylinders they sold per year and
the following cost estimates. The estimate assumes that NIST analyzes 4
cylinders from each production site, and the total annual cost due to
the PGVP would be approximately $7,200 per production site.  The $7200
estimate includes cylinder analysis and report production by NIST
($1,667/cylinder), average one-way shipping costs back to the production
site ($91/cylinder), and average rental ($7/cylinder/month).  The total
cost of NIST analysis, report production, six months cylinder rental,
and shipping back to the production site is approximately $1,800 per
cylinder.

EPA assumes that both the AETB and PGVP costs will be passed on to
respondents.  To calculate increased O&M costs per respondent, EPA
assumed an average six cylinders per year per unit at an increased cost
of two dollars per cylinder which results in an overall increase of
$54,156 per year.  As such, the QA testing and maintenance costs for
units affected by ARP and CAIR along with the increased cylinder costs
that are passed along to respondents by PGVP vendors, results in an
estimated total annual cost of $1,284,180 for Part 75 QA activities (see
Table 3).  Note that only the marginal increase in fees that can be
attributed to the requirements for AETBs and PGVP vendors in the final
rule were included in this estimate.

Table 3

Increased Annual QA and Maintenance Costs

Information Collection Activity	Previously Established Cont./O&M Cost
Increased Cont./O&M Cost per Respondent	Number of Respondents

(Units)	Increased Total Cost/Year

ARP Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Model A (CEMS)	$31,949	$319	1,046	$333,674

Model C (App D -- NOx CEM)	$17,818	$178	2,107	$375,046

Model D (App D and E)	$1,843	$19	438	$8,322

Model E (LME)	$1,991	$20	145	$2,900

One Time DAHS Upgrade

$500	631	$315,500

CAIR Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units) PM and O3	$31,200 	$312
102	$31,824

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOx, and Flow CEMS (units) No PM	$20,800 	$208 	4	$832

Gas-Oil:  NOx CEMS and App D (units)	$17,400 	$174 	521	$90,654

-- Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  App D, App E, or LME methods (units)	$1,800
$18 	150	$2,700

One Time DAHS Upgrade3	 	$500 	126	$63,000

Transport Rule Perform QA Testing and Maintenance

Solid Fuel:  SO2, NOX, and Flow CEMS (units)	$20,800 	$208 	7	$1,456

Gas-Oil:  NOX CEMS and Appendix D fuel monitoring (units)	$17,400 	$174
17	$2,958

Gas-Oil Peaking Units:  Appendix D fuel sampling, Appendix E, or LME
methods (units)	$1,800 	$18 	29	$522

PGVP Increased Costs

($2 per cylinder at an assumed average of 6 cylinders per year)	 	$12
4,566	$54,792

Total	$1,284,180

6.5  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The burden estimated in the preceding ICR (2203.02) included a one-time
burden associated with reviewing the January 2008 Part 75 rule
revisions, as well as the burden associated with DAHS upgrades and
debugging.  The one-time burden for reviewing the January 2008 Part 75
revisions in the rule no longer applies.  As result of the removal of
the 2008 Part 75 revisions review, the net burden change associated with
ICR 2203.04 is a reduction of 122,670 hours and an increase of $788,280.
 The overall increase in dollars is attributed to increased annual
quality assurance and maintenance costs, while the large reduction in
hours is attributable to the removal of the previous ICR’s large rule
reading burden.

This collection request reflects the additional one-time burden for Part
75 sources to review the AETB-related and PGVP-related requirements in
the rule, the one time burden associated with the DAHS upgrade
specifically required to support the new reporting requirements, the
annual burden associated with complying with the modified reporting
requirements, and the additional O&M costs that Part 75 sources will
incur as a result of increased AETB and PGVP costs for Part 75 testing
due to compliance with the revised requirements.  EPA assumes that these
costs may be passed along to Part 75 sources in the form of higher
testing fees.  This ICR also reflects the Agency burden associated with
maintenance and quality assurance of the PGVP and AETB programs.

6.6  Burden Statement

	The total annual respondent burden is estimated to be 2,306 hours, with
total annual labor and O&M costs estimated to be $1,467,822.  This
estimate includes the burden associated with the increase in fees from
AETBs and PGVP vendors resulting from their compliance with the new
requirements in the rule as well as the small labor burden for sources
to review the new requirements and comply with the modified
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  When the respondent burden is
combined with the Agency burden, the overall burden and cost per year is
estimated to be 2,646 hours and $1,492,112 respectively.

	Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information 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; 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.  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 are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  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
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An
electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the
Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk
Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837 and OMB Control Number 2060-0626 in any
correspondenceമഌ灁数摮硩䄠匋浵慭祲漠敒楶楳湯⁳湩
䘠湩污删汵഍ऍ桔楆慮畒敬映牯䄠敭摮敭瑮⁳潴
琠敨倠潲潴潣慇⁳敖楲楦慣楴湯倠潲牧浡愠摮䴠湩浩
浵䌠浯数整据⁹敒畱物浥湥獴映牯䄠物䔠業獳潩敔瑳
湩湩汣摵獥琠敨映汯潬楷杮ഺ

●	Amended §72.2 by adding two new definitions, and updating others.

●	Amended §72.13  and §75.6 by incorporating by reference a newer
August 25, 1999 version of the EPA Traceability Protocol, and updating
certain references.

●	Revised §75.21(g) to clarify certain provisions and to require any
EPA Protocol gas production site that participates in the PGVP to notify
the Agency of its intent to participate.  Program participants would
need to notify EPA of their intent to participate on an annual basis.
EPA眠畯摬椠獳敵愠瘠湥潤⁲䑉渠浵敢⁲潴攠捡慰瑲捩
灩湡ⱴ眠楨档眠畯摬琠敨敢愠爠煥極敲慤慴攠敬敭
瑮椠慥档攠敬瑣潲楮畱牡整汲⁹敲潰瑲䔠䅐眠汩
慭湩慴湩愠氠獩⁴景瀠牡楴楣慰瑮⁳湡瑯敨⁲牰杯
慲湩潦浲瑡潩湯愠眠扥楳整മ

●	Revised the recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§75.59
and 75.64 to enable EPA to verify that Part 75 affected sources are
using EPA Protocol gases from participating sites and to inform gas
cylinder selection for the PGVP audits.   The new electronic quarterly
PGVP data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 180 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report.

●	Amended §6.5.10 of Appendix A to Part 75 to require that the EPA
Protocol gases used when performing Methods 3A, 6C, or 7E must be from
EPA Protocol gas production sites participating in the PGVP.

●	Added simple recordkeeping requirements under §75.59, and reporting
requirements under §75.63 and §75.64 to allow the Agency to verify
that a Qualified Individual and an Air Emission Testing Body meet the
applicable requirements (see Appendix B).  Recordkeeping and reporting
elements include the name, telephone number
a摮攠慭汩愠摤敲獳漠桴楁⁲浅獩楳湯吠獥楴杮䈠
摯⁹湡桴湯猭瑩畑污晩敩湉楤楶畤污ഠ

●	Amendment to Section 6.1.2 of Appendix A to clarify assumptions with
respect to ensuring the validity of test data and to post the names of
non-complying AETBs on Agency web sites.  The new electronic quarterly
AETB data elements in §75.64 would be reported on and after 365 days
from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, either prior to or
concurrent with the submittal of the relevant quarterly electronic data
report.

●	Removed specific references to mercury monitoring systems throughout
Part 75.

●	Clarified self certification and third party accreditation
provisions to ensure AETBs comply with ASTM D 7036-04.

●	Amended §75.4(d) to clarify the applicability provisions for units
in long-term cold storage after having completed initial certification
and amended §75.4(e) to ensure that all new ARP units are provided the
same 90 operating day/180 calendar day flexible window of time to
perform the necessary monitoring system testing when a new stack is
constructed or add-on SO2 or NOx emission
c湯牴汯⁳牡湩瑳污敬⹤†ഠ

●	Amended §75.6 to add Section 3, Small Volume Provers, First Edition
to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 4 -- Proving Systems.

●	Amended §§75.53, 75.58, and 75.59, by adding various data elements
that were inadvertently left out of the August 22, 2006 proposed rule
and the January 24, 2008 final rule.  These data elements have already
been incorporated in the data acquisition and handling systems of Part
75 affected units, and are needed to make EPA's new reporting software
data requirements consistent with the regulatory requirements.

●	Revised §75.22(a)(5)(iv) to only allow “dynamic spiking” as an
additional Method 7E quality assurance check; and paragraph (v) to
disallow multiple Method 7E runs to be performed before conducting the
post-run bias or system calibration error check.

●	Removed from §75.47(b)(3) the requirement for an owner or operator
to demonstrate that emissions for a class-approved alternative
monitoring system (AMS) are de minimis and  removed the requirement for
EPA to publish a FR notice for a 30-day public comment period prior to
granting a class-approved AMS.

●	Added a new paragraph (d) to §§75.62 and 75.63 to require the
Designated Representative or the Alternate Designated Representative to
enclose a hard copy cover letter with each hard copy monitoring plan and
certification or recertification submittal, but to make it optional for
electronic submittals.

Revised Part 75, Appendix A, Section 4 to update reporting formats.

hX+

t

”

Ž

Ž

•

»

Ä

萑ː葠ː摧墼ó

hX+

  hX+

hX+

hM

摧㢻L

hM

hM

&

&

&

kdÕ

kdm

h

h

h

&

&

&

	”

	”

kd

摧㢻L

h>

hY

h>

h

摧昔÷

 ecification for EPA Protocol gases and research gas mixtures, and to
update the incorporation by reference provision.

Appendix B

Summary of Standard Practice for Competence of Air Emission Testing
Bodies

(ASTM D7036-04)

	ASTM D7036-04 specifies general requirements for competence to perform
air emissions tests of stationary sources.  These standards were
developed by representatives from large and small stack testing
companies, state and Federal governments, and private industry.  Its
scope is nationwide and based largely on ISO 17025.  Note that any AETB
conducting RATAs of CEMS, Appendix E testing, or deriving default
emission rates for LME units under part 75 must conform to ASTM
D7036-04.  Following is a general overview of some key
requirements.†ഠ伍杲湡穩瑡潩Ɱ䴠湡条浥湥ⱴ愠摮䐠捯
浵湥慴楴湯ഺ

●	Maintain a system that allows for monitoring the delivery and
improvement of services (as measured by performance data);

●	Maintain a legally identifiable and clearly defined organizational
structure, including parent organizations, staff responsibilities, and
provisions of support services;

●	Employ a technical manager/director, quality manager, and qualified
individual on-site for each test project (who is qualified for each test
method performed);

●	Maintain ability to provide documentation showing compliance with
relevant Federal, state and local requirements for conducting testing
procedures as well as health and safety and other relevant requirements;

●	Maintain procedures to control all documents required for the
established quality system;

●	Ensure that documents are uniquely identified and reviewed/approved
by same group that performed the original review; and

●	Maintain a document control system that allows for tracking
revisions or amendments.

Quality System, Audit, and Review:

●	Develop and maintain a quality assurance policy and a quality system
to ensure consistent achievement of data quality objectives;

●	Document the quality system in a manual that covers all elements
outlined in Appendix X1 of ASTM D7036-04; and

●	Conduct internal audits in accordance with Section 7.4.2 of ASTM
D7036-04.

Personnel:

●	Ensure competence of testing staff and maintain requirements for
staff training; and

●	Provide "Qualified Individuals" to oversee and supervise test
projects and ensure that these individuals take an exam every five years
and meet the experience requirements in Section 8.3.4 of ASTM D7036-04.

Environment, Equipment, and Test Methods:

摧㢻L

he

he

6 not invalidate test results;

●	Ensure adequate access by qualified individuals to fully operational
testing equipment and software;

●	Establish calibration programs for the equipment (including key
quantities or values) and maintain records for all equipment used; and

●	Use appropriate methods and procedures for all testing performed,
and document any deviations from the applicable regulations in the test
protocol or report that is established for each test project.

Recordkeeping and Reporting:

●	Maintain procedures for handling and storage of quality and
technical records;

●	Retain records of original observations, derived data, information
for audit trail, calibration records, and other information;

●	Accurately report the results of each test, calibration or series of
tests; and

●	Include the information outlined in Section 15.3 of ASTM D7036-04 in
each test report or calibration certificate.

Other Information:

●	Follow guidelines in Section 16 of ASTM D7036-04 if subcontractors
are used;

萏ː萑ﺘ葞ː葠ﺘ摧琺ê᐀●	Maintain policies and procedures
for the purchase and use of outside support and supplies; and

●	Maintain policies and procedures in the event that nonconforming
work is completed, including an approach for corrective action.

 As discussed in text, no increased labor burdens; marginal O&M cost
increases only.

 To calculate the number of units required to perform a DAHS upgrade, it
was assumed that 80% of applicable CEMS units would be covered by an
existing service contract and not subject to the annualized $1500 fee.
It is assumed that the newly affected units under the Transport Rule
will not require a DAHS upgrade.

Information Collection Request

August 10, 2011

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  15

August 10, 2011

Appendix A

November 11, 2009

Page A-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

Appendix B

November 11, 2009

Page B-  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11674-11678]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03826]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0742; FRL-10020-09-Region 8]

Approval of the Tribal Implementation Plan for the Northern
Cheyenne Tribe

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) submitted by the Northern
Cheyenne Tribe (Tribe) on September 25, 2017, to regulate air pollution
within the exterior boundaries of the Tribe's Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation and four tribal trust parcels (collectively, the
Reservation). The EPA is proposing to approve the TIP based on
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
through a permitted open burning program. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to sections 110(o), 110(k)(3), and 301(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act).

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before March
29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2020-0742, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit: http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle Olson, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-TRM, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The EPA Action Being Proposed Today
II. Introduction
III. Background
IV. Tribal Implementation Plan Requirements
    A. What is required for the approval of a Tribal Implementation
Plan?
V. Northern Cheyenne Tribe's TIP Submittal
    A. Northern Cheyenne Tribe TAS Eligibility
    B. What authority does the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's Department
of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (DEPNR) have?
    C. What role does the EPA have in criminal enforcement?
    D. When did the Northern Cheyenne Tribe adopt the TIP under
Tribal Law?
    E. What is included in the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's TIP
submittal?
    1. Ambient Air Quality Standards
    2. Open Burning Program
    3. Enforcement
VI. What EPA action is being taken today?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The EPA Action Being Proposed Today

    The EPA is proposing approval of the Tribe's TIP submission which
contains programs to address: Ambient air quality standards for sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone
(O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead; permitting; open
burning; and enforcement.

II. Introduction

    The Tribe is a federally-recognized Indian tribe by the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior. See 85 FR 5462, 5464 (January 30, 2020).
Beginning in 2017, the Tribe, with assistance from the EPA, began
developing a draft TIP and its various elements with the goal of
eventually submitting the TIP to the EPA for approval. On September 25,
2017, the Tribe requested that the EPA find the Tribe eligible for
treatment in a similar manner as a state (TAS), pursuant to section
301(d) of the CAA and Title 40 part 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), for the purpose of developing and carrying out a
TIP. The Tribe also formally submitted the TIP to the EPA on September
25, 2017. On June 22, 2020, the EPA determined that the Tribe is
eligible for TAS for that purpose. Having found that the Tribe is
eligible for TAS, the EPA is now proposing to approve the Tribe's TIP.
    The Tribe's TIP has been developed to protect the Reservation
populace from air pollution by controlling open burning sources. The
TIP establishes primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for
CO, lead, SO2, PM10, PM2.5,
NO2, and O3. The TIP also establishes an open
burning permitting program and enforcement authorities.

III. Background

    The CAA was originally enacted in 1963 and has been significantly
amended over the years (most notably in 1970, 1977, and 1990). Among
other things, the Act: Requires the EPA to establish NAAQS for certain
pollutants; requires the EPA to develop programs to address specific
air quality problems; establishes the EPA's enforcement authority; and
provides for air quality research. As part of the 1990 amendments,
Congress added section 301(d) to the Act authorizing the EPA to treat
eligible Indian tribes ``in the same manner as states'' and directing
the EPA to promulgate regulations specifying those provisions of the
Act for which TAS is appropriate. In February of 1998, the EPA
implemented this requirement by promulgating the Tribal Authority Rule
(TAR) (63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998), codified at 40 CFR part 49). The
EPA included relevant provisions relating to implementation plans among
the provisions for which TAS is appropriate (exceptions are identified
in 40 CFR 49.4).
    Under the provisions of the Act and the EPA's regulations, Indian
tribes must demonstrate that they meet the criteria in section 301(d)
of the Act and the TAR in order to be eligible for TAS. The eligibility
criteria are: (1) The Indian tribe is federally recognized; (2) the
Indian tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental
duties and powers; (3) the functions the Indian tribe is applying to
carry out pertain to the management and protection of air resources
within the exterior boundaries of the reservation (or other areas
within the Indian tribe's jurisdiction); and (4) the Indian tribe is
reasonably expected to be capable of performing the functions the
Indian tribe is applying to carry out in a manner consistent with the
terms and purposes of the Act and all applicable regulations.
    An implementation plan is a set of programs and regulations
developed by the appropriate regulatory agency in order to assure
healthy air quality through the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. These plans can be developed by states, eligible Indian tribes,
or the EPA, depending on the entity with jurisdiction and the EPA's
approval in a particular area.
    For states, these plans are referred to as State Implementation
Plans or SIPs. For eligible Indian tribes, these plans are called TIPs.
Occasionally, the EPA will develop an implementation plan for a
specific area or source. This is referred to as a Federal
Implementation Plan or a FIP. Once final approval is published in the
Federal Register, the provisions of an implementation plan become
federally enforceable. An applicable implementation plan may be
comprised of both TIPs and FIPs or SIPs and FIPs.
    The contents of a typical implementation plan may fall into three
categories: (1) Enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance; (2) ``non-regulatory'' components (e.g., attainment plans,
rate of progress plans, emission inventories, statutes demonstrating
legal authority, monitoring programs); and (3) additional requirements
promulgated by the EPA (in the absence of a commensurate state or
tribal provision) to satisfy a mandatory CAA section 110 or part D
requirement. The implementation plan is a living document which can be
revised by the state or eligible Indian tribe as necessary to address
air pollution problems. Accordingly, the EPA from time to time must
take action on implementation plan revisions which may contain new and/
or revised regulations that will become part of the implementation
plan.
    Upon submittal to the EPA, the EPA reviews implementation plans for
conformance with federal policies and regulations. If the
implementation plan conforms, the state's or eligible Indian tribe's
regulations become federally enforceable upon EPA approval. The
codification is usually accomplished by notice-and-comment rulemaking,
with publications of proposed and final rules in the Federal Register.

IV. Tribal Implementation Plan Requirements

What is required for the approval of a Tribal Implementation Plan?

    For a tribe to receive EPA approval of a TIP, the tribe must, among
other things, obtain a determination from the EPA that the tribe is
eligible for TAS for purposes of the TIP and submit to the EPA a TIP
that satisfies requirements of the Act and relevant regulations that
apply to the plan elements and functions the tribe seeks to carry out.
    The following technical elements in a TIP may include, but are not
limited to: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality and Planning Standards. Developing a Tribal Implementation
Plan. chapters 2 and 4. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-09/documents/developing_a_tribal_implementation_plan_sept._2018_1.pdf. 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A list of regulated pollutants affected by the plan;
     Documentation that the plan contains emission limitations,
work practice standards, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements; and
     Regulations.
    The TAR allows tribes to develop, adopt, and submit an
implementation plan for approval as a TIP in a modular fashion, so it
may not be necessary to meet all of the requirements identified above.
    The EPA has the authority, under the Act, to enforce the
regulations in an approved TIP. The EPA recognizes that, in certain
circumstances, eligible Indian tribes have limited criminal enforcement
authority. The TAR specifically provides that such limitations on an
Indian tribe's criminal enforcement authority do not prevent a TIP from
being approved. Where implementation of the TIP requires criminal
enforcement authority, and to

the extent a tribe is precluded from asserting such authority, the
federal government will exercise primary criminal enforcement
responsibility. A memorandum of agreement between an Indian tribe and
the EPA is an appropriate way to address circumstances in which the
tribe is incapable of exercising applicable enforcement requirements as
described in 40 CFR 49.7(a)(6) and 40 CFR 49.8. The memorandum of
agreement shall include a process by which the tribe will provide
potential investigative leads to the EPA and/or other appropriate
federal agencies in an appropriate and timely manner.

V. Northern Cheyenne Tribe's TIP Submittal

A. Northern Cheyenne Tribe TAS Eligibility

    On September 25, 2017, the Tribe requested an EPA determination
under the provisions of 40 CFR 49.7 that the Tribe is eligible for TAS
for the purpose of developing a TIP for air quality. On June 22, 2020,
the EPA determined that the Tribe meets the eligibility requirements of
section 301(d) of the Act and 40 CFR 49.6 for the purposes of
developing and carrying out an implementation plan under the Act. EPA's
decision on the TAS is final and is provided as background only in this
action. It is not subject to further public comment as part of this TIP
approval.

B. What authority does the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's Department of
Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (DEPNR) have?

    The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council gave the DEPNR authority to
administer the Northern Cheyenne Clean Air Act (NCCAA) programs on
behalf of the Tribe in Tribal Ordinance No. DOI-008 (2017) dated
December 7, 2016. The Northern Cheyenne Tribal Council had the
authority to take this action pursuant to Article IV, Section 1(a),
(i), and (r) of the Tribe's Amended Constitution and Bylaws.\2\ Tribal
Ordinance NO. DOI-008 (2017) authorized the DEPNR to administer the
NCCAA programs, as allowed under the Act and the EPA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Northern Cheyenne TAS/TIP Application, section J, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What role does the EPA have in criminal enforcement?

    The Tribe did not submit, and EPA is not proposing to approve, any
criminal enforcement authority under the TIP. Accordingly, the EPA is
responsible for pursuing any criminal enforcement action for violations
of the Act or implementing regulations that occur in Indian country.
Consistent with 49 CFR 49.7(a)(6) and 49 CFR 49.8, on May 14, 2020, the
Tribe entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with EPA Region 8
concerning criminal enforcement of air pollution rules and regulations
as part of the TAS application process. Under the terms of this MOA,
the Tribe would refer alleged criminal violations of the Act that
exceed the Tribe's criminal authority to EPA Region 8 if the EPA
approves the Tribe for CAA criminal enforcement authorities in the
future. Neither the proposed action nor the MOA prevent the Tribe from
pursuing criminal enforcement actions within the Tribe's criminal
authority under tribal law.

D. When did the Northern Cheyenne Tribe adopt the TIP under Tribal Law?

    On December 7, 2016, the NCCAA was approved by the Tribal Council
as Tribal Ordinance No. DOI-008 (2017). On September 12, 2017, the
Tribal Council passed Resolution No. DOI-201 (2017) authorizing
submission of the NCCAA to the EPA as a TIP under the Act. The Tribe's
staff completed the public notification process for a TIP required by
40 CFR 51.102 and received no public comments and no requests for a
public hearing regarding the TIP.\3\ In addition, the Tribe has posted
the NCCAA on the Tribe's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Northern Cheyenne TAS/TIP Application, Resolution No. DOI-
201(2017), section Z, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What is included in the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's TIP submittal?

    The Tribe's TIP submittal includes ambient air quality standards
for CO, lead, NO2, O3, PM10,
PM2.5, and SO2, and provisions for an open
burning permit program, enforcement and appeals, and emergency
authority.
1. Ambient Air Quality Standards
    The EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for six air
pollutants: CO, lead, NO2, O3,
PM10/PM2.5, and SO2. See https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Most pollutants
regulated by the NAAQS have two limits. The ``primary'' standard is
designed to protect the public--including children, people with asthma,
and the elderly--from health risks. The ``secondary'' standard is to
prevent unacceptable effects on the public welfare, e.g., damage to
crops and vegetation, buildings and property, and ecosystems.
    The Tribe established primary and secondary air quality standards,
which will remain consistent with any future EPA updates to the NAAQS,
for the following air pollutants:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Pollutant            Primary/secondary     Averaging time             Level                Form
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Monoxide (CO)..........  primary..........  8 hours.............  9 ppm...............  Not to be
                                                   1-hour..............  35 ppm..............   exceeded more
                                                                                than once per
                                                                                year.
Lead (Pb).....................  primary and        Rolling 3 month       0.15 [micro]g/m\3\..  Not to be
                                 secondary.         period.                                     exceeded.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)........  primary..........  1-hour..............  100 ppb.............  98th percentile
                                                                                of 1-hour daily
                                                                                maximum
                                                                                concentrations,
                                                                                averaged over 3
                                                                                years.
                                primary and        1 year..............  53 ppb..............  Annual Mean.
                                 secondary.
Ozone (O3)....................  primary and        8 hours.............  0.070 ppm...........  Annual fourth-
                                 secondary.                                                     highest daily
                                                                                maximum 8-hour
                                                                                concentration,
                                                                                avereaged over 3
                                                                                years.
Particle Pollution (PM):
    PM2.5.....................  primary..........  1 year..............  12.0 [micro]g/m3....  Annual mean,
                                                                                averaged over 3
                                                                                years.
                                secondary........  1 year..............  15.0 [micro]g/m\3\..  Annual mean,
                                                                                averaged over 3
                                                                                years.
                                primary and        24 hours............  35 [micro]g/m\3\....  98th percentile,
                                 secondary.                                                     averaged over 3
                                                                                years.
    PM10......................  primary and        24 hours............  150 [micro]g/m3.....  Not to be
                                 secondary.                                                     exceeded more
                                                                                than once per
                                                                                year on average
                                                                                over 3 years.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)..........  primary..........  1-hour..............  75 ppb..............  99th percentile
                                                                                of 1-hour daily
                                                                                maximum
                                                                                concentrations,
                                                                                averaged over 3
                                                                                years.
                                secondary........  3 hours.............  0.5 ppm.............  Not to be
                                                                                exceeded more
                                                                                than once per
                                                                                year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the EPA proposes to approve the Tribe's standards for
the pollutants listed in the table above, which are the same as the
NAAQS, for incorporation into the TIP.
2. Open Burning Program
    The proposed TIP establishes a general prohibition on open burning
on the Reservation (see NCCAA Section 5.1), unless otherwise exempted
under NCCAA Section 5.2 (i.e., open burning for cultural, traditional,
or spiritual purposes or open burning activity that is less than four
feet in diameter and less than three feet in height) or is permitted
under NCCAA Section 5.7. The Tribe reserves the right to issue burn
bans, per NCCAA Section 5.6, and prohibits the burning of listed
materials in NCCAA Section 5.4 (unless authorized for training fires).
    Permitting procedures for open burning are specified in NCCAA
Section 5.7. Permits are required for open burning activity on the
Reservation that is four or more feet in diameter or three or more feet
in height (unless exempted under NCCAA Section 5.2) prior to commencing
open burning activities. Permits may be issued only if the Air Quality
Administrator determines, in consultation with the appropriate Bureau
of Indian Affairs, Northern Cheyenne Agency personnel, that the
proposed open burning activity will not cause an adverse impact on
Reservation air quality or otherwise endanger public health or welfare
on the Reservation. Permits are also required to contain certain
minimum permit conditions, including setback requirements, equipment
and supply requirements, wind speed limitations, and extinguishment
conditions, etc. Violations of any applicable permit terms or
conditions are considered violations of the NCCAA. For all permitted
open burning activities, the permittee must notify the Air Quality
Administrator at least two working days prior to commencing an open
burning activity and must notify Northern Cheyenne Fire Protection not
less than one hour prior to commencing the open burning activity
(during regular business hours). Section 5.5 of the NCCAA specifies,
however, that no person shall commence or continue an open burning
activity within the Reservation that is determined by the Director of
the Tribe's DEPNR, in consultation with the Air Quality Administrator,
to cause or contribute to an exceedance of any Northern Cheyenne
Ambient Air Quality Standard. The EPA is proposing to approve the
conditions and procedures the Tribe has established for its open
burning permitting program.
3. Enforcement
    Section 3 of the proposed TIP covers civil enforcement and appeals.
Under the TIP, the Tribe's Air Quality Administrator can issue
compliance orders for TIP violations. A compliance order can include
civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for each violation and an
assessment of costs incurred by DEPNR. The Air Quality Administrator
can file an action in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court pursuant to the
Northern Cheyenne Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a penalty order
or to seek preliminary injunctive relief against any person who is
suspected to have violated the TIP or a compliance order.
    Alleged violators can challenge compliance orders by petitioning
the DEPNR Director for administrative review within 30 days of
receiving the order. The Director shall promptly review petitions for
administrative review and issue a written decision that upholds,
vacates, or modifies the order. Alleged violators can challenge a
decision by the Director by filing an action in Northern Cheyenne
Tribal Court pursuant to the Northern Cheyenne Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Tribal Court shall uphold any decision by the Director
unless it is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.
    The EPA finds the Tribe has adequately established an enforcement
mechanism to carry out its regulations, and the EPA proposes to approve
it.

VI. What EPA action is being taken today?

    The EPA is proposing approval of the Tribe's proposed TIP, which
contains programs to address ambient air quality standards for the
NAAQS pollutants, an open burning program, and enforcement provisions.
The public docket contains the Tribe's proposed TIP, TAS eligibility
determination, and enforcement MOA with the EPA.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the TIP amendments described in Section VI of
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov (refer to
docket EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0742).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP or
TIP 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).
In reviewing TIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve tribal
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely proposes to approve tribal law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by tribal 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the 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).
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with

Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The EPA has concluded that
this proposed rule will have tribal implications in that it will have
substantial direct effects on the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. However, it
will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal
governments nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is proposing to approve the
TIP at the request of the Tribe. Tribal law will not be preempted as
the Tribe has already incorporated the TIP into Tribal law on December
7, 2016. The Tribe has applied for, and fully supports, the proposed
approval of the TIP. If it is approved, the TIP will become federally
enforceable.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Indians, Indians--
law, Indians--tribal government, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: February 17, 2021.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2021-03826 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44338]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15789]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89328; File No. SR-BOX-2020-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change to Adopt Rules Governing the Trading of Equity Securities on the
Exchange Through a Facility of the Exchange Known as the Boston
Security Token Exchange LLC

July 16, 2020.
    On May 21, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') 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 adopt rules
governing the listing and trading of equity securities that would be
NMS stocks on the Exchange through a facility of the Exchange known as
the Boston Security Token Exchange LLC. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 1, 2020.\3\ The
Commission has received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88946 (May 26,
2020), 85 FR 33454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is July 16, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission hereby is extending the 45-day time period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds
that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to
take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time
to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ the Commission designates August 30, 2020, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. SR-BOX-2020-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15789 Filed 7-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P