[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41712-41717]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17783]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0927; FRL-9428-9]

Approval, Disapproval, and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions to New Source Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving
revisions to the State of Utah's Clean Air Act (CAA) State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Utah has a federally-approved Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit program for new
and modified sources impacting attainment areas in the State. Utah
requested approval of its revised rules to implement the non-vacated
provisions of EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform regulations. EPA
proposed approval of these rules on January 7, 2009 and received
adverse comments. In this action, EPA responds to these comments and
announces EPA's final rulemaking action. This action affects major
stationary sources in Utah that are subject to or potentially subject
to the PSD preconstruction permit program. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: This action is effective on August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-0927. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
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. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Air Quality Planning Unit (8P-AR), 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for This Action
    A. What revisions to the Utah SIP does this action address?
    B. What comments did we receive on our proposal for these
revisions?
    1. Section 110(l)
    a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 110(l)
    b. EPA Response to Section 110(l)-Related Comments
    2. Section 193
    a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 193
    b. EPA Response to Section 193--Related Comments
II. Final Action
    A. Rules To Approve Into the Utah SIP
    B. Rules To Disapprove and Therefore Not Incorporate Into the
Utah SIP
    C. Scope of Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for This Action

    Title I of the CAA, as amended by Congress in 1990, specifies the
general requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and/or
maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and EPA's
actions regarding approval of those SIPs. SIPs must include, among
other requirements, an NSR preconstruction permit program, which, for
attainment areas, meets federal PSD requirements.
    On February 12, 1982, EPA approved into the Utah SIP PSD permitting
regulations. On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the
federal PSD and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR parts 51 and
52 (67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as the ``NSR
Reform'' regulations and became effective nationally in areas not
covered by a SIP on March 3, 2003. For information on subsequent court
decisions and regulatory revisions to these rules, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
    On September 15, 2006, October 1, 2007, and March 7, 2008, the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) submitted numerous rule
changes and requested that the Utah SIP be revised to reflect those
changes. These changes include revisions to Utah's Rule R307-405
(``Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)'')
and to Utah's Rule R307-110-9 (``Section VIII, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules'').
    On January 7, 2009 EPA proposed to partially approve and partially
disapprove the revisions submitted by the Utah DEQ. 74 FR 667 (January
7,

2009). This final action will update the federally approved SIP to
reflect those changes made by Utah DEQ that EPA has reviewed and deemed
approvable into the Utah SIP (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,
part 52, subpart TT).

A. What revisions to the Utah SIP does this action address?

    We are partially approving revisions to R307-405 (``Permits: Major
Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)'') and approving
revisions to R307-110-9 (``Section VIII, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules''). EPA is disapproving
R307-405-3.(3)(a)(i) because it defines ``Major Source Baseline Date''
in a manner inconsistent with the federal definition found at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14). In all other respects we are approving the State's March
7, 2008 submitted revisions to R307-405, and the State's September 15,
2006 submitted revisions to R307-110-9. More information about each SIP
submittal, including a summary of the submittal and relevant background
information and analysis supporting our action, can be found in our
proposed rule. 74 FR 667 (January 7, 2009).

B. What comments did we receive on our proposal for these revisions?

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commented on EPA's
proposal to approve changes to Utah's permitting programs for major
stationary sources, specifically the PSD permit program and the
nonattainment area (Part D) permit program that incorporate EPA's
``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' NRDC primarily commented on the requirements
of the Federal NSR rules, not Utah's application of the Federal
requirements in its own rules. Notably, NRDC participated in litigation
challenging EPA's promulgation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, where
similar arguments were made by NRDC and rejected by the DC Circuit
Court. See New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Many of NRDC's
comments in this action, including exhibits, do not raise any specific
concerns with Utah's rules, but rather, reiterate arguments that NRDC
made to the court regarding EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules and the
requirements of Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.
    Although NRDC's comments cite nine sections of the Utah rules, the
comments make no attempt to specifically explain or demonstrate how
those identified provisions are inconsistent with either Section 110(l)
or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, NRDC provides no evidence
supporting its allegations that approval of the specific provisions
would result in a violation of the CAA. The NRDC comments include a
list of 31 exhibits which the comment letter incorporates by reference
into the comments. The 31 exhibits appear to stem from the New York v.
EPA litigation, and were either submitted to that Court for review, or
are relevant to that adjudication. In any event, none of the 31
exhibits provides EPA with any comments specific to the Utah rules at
issue. NRDC does note that the New York v. EPA decision addressed EPA's
regulations, rather than state regulations submitted under section 110
of the CAA, and that the Court of Appeals had no occasion to decide
whether EPA could approve a particular state's implementation of the
NSR Reform Rules consistent with Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.
EPA's responses to NRDC's comments regarding Sections 110(l) and 193
are below.
1. Section 110(l)
    a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 110(l):
    NRDC asserts that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions that were
not vacated by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA allow previously-
prohibited emissions increases to occur.'' As a result, NRDC states
that ``it cannot be said of Utah's plan that it `will cause no
degradation of air quality''' and ``Utah has made no `demonstration
that the emissions that are allowed by its revised rule but are
prohibited by the current SIP would not interfere with attainment or
other applicable requirements.''' Further, NRDC states that ``EPA has
never made, or even proposed to make, a finding that revising Utah's
permit provisions so that they track the non-vacated provisions of the
2002 rule'' would be consistent with Section 110(l) of the CAA.
    b. EPA Response to Section 110(l)-Related Comments:
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that ``[t]he Administrator shall
not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' 42
U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does not interpret section 110(l) to require a full
attainment or maintenance demonstration before any changes to a SIP may
be approved. Generally, a SIP revision may be approved under section
110(l) if EPA finds it will at least preserve status quo air quality.
See Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006); GHASP v. EPA, No. 06-61030 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008); see also,
e.g., 70 FR 53 (Jan. 3, 2005), 70 FR 28429 (May 18, 2005) (proposed and
final rules, upheld in Kentucky Resources, which discuss EPA's
interpretation of section 110(l).
    EPA has determined that Utah's SIP revision will not ``interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the
CAA]'' in violation of Section 110(l) of the CAA because it will result
in neutral or beneficial effects on air quality. EPA's conclusion rests
on two major analyses: (1) the national-scale analysis that EPA
conducted in support of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and (2) the state-
specific analysis that Utah DEQ conducted in support of its recent
regulatory revisions.
    First, EPA's national analysis in support of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules indicates that the non-vacated provisions of the NSR Reform Rules
will have a neutral or beneficial impact. The three significant changes
in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were upheld by the court were (1)
Plantwide applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in-10 baseline, and
(3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. EPA's Supplemental
Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement
Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis) discussed each of
these three changes individually, and addresses some of the issues
raised by NRDC.
    With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explains, ``EPA
expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions
caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as
well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further
explained that:

    Although it is impossible to predict how many and which sources
will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources will
achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide basis,
PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of reductions
of VOC from source categories where frequent operational changes are
made, where these changes are time sensitive, and where there are
opportunities for economical air pollution control measures. These
reductions occur because of the incentives that the PAL creates to
control existing and new units in order to provide room under the
cap to make necessary operational changes over the life of the PAL.

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provides additional details regarding EPA's analysis of
PALs and

anticipated associated emissions decreases.
    With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded that ``the
environmental impact from the change in baseline EPA is now finalizing
will not result in any significant change in benefits derived from the
NSR program.'' Supplemental Analysis at 13. This is mainly because
``the number of sources receiving different baselines likely represents
a very small fraction of the overall NSR permit universe, excludes new
sources and coal fired power plants, and because the baseline may shift
in either direction, we conclude that any overall consequences would be
negligible.'' Supplemental Analysis at 14. Additional information
regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is available in the Supplemental
Analysis, Appendix F.
    With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded,
``We believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the
actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally
beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the
vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric
utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase
emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change.
Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be
environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental
Analysis at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G). EPA has no
reason to believe that the environmental impacts will be substantially
different from those discussed in the Supplemental Analysis for the
2002 NSR Reform Rules.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In reviewing EPA's approval of a Wisconsin SIP amendment
that adopted of the 2002 NSR Reform rules, a Federal appeals court
recently held that EPA could rely on the Supplemental Analysis in
support of its approval. See NRDC v. Jackson, Nos. 09-1405 & 10-2123
(7th Cir., Jun. 16, 2011), 2011 US App LEXIS 12116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As NRDC acknowledges, the Utah PSD rules track the Federal 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. Overall, as summarized above, EPA expects that changes in
air quality as a result of implementing Utah's PSD rules will be
consistent with EPA's position on the Federal 2002 NSR Reform Rules--
that there will be somewhere between neutral and providing modest
contribution to reasonable further progress when the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules are compared to the pre-reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the
environmental impacts of these three components of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rules is informative of how Utah's adoption of NSR Reform (based on the
Federal rules) is expected to affect emissions and air quality. EPA has
no reason to believe that the environmental impacts in Utah will be
substantially different from the anticipated nationwide effects
discussed in the Supplemental Analysis for the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    Second, Utah's own analysis of the air quality impacts of its rules
supports EPA's conclusion that approval of Utah's SIP revision will not
``interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable requirement
of [the CAA]'' in violation of Section 110(l) of the CAA. As discussed
above, NRDC cites seven general sections of Utah's rules as provisions
the approval of which would violate Section 110(l). Without further
specificity, however, it is not clear why or how NRDC believes approval
of these provisions would violate Section 110(l). Moreover, NRDC has
provided no information or data that indicates that EPA's analysis and
conclusions regarding the impact of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, in the
Supplemental Analysis, are not applicable to Utah's rules, which mirror
the Federal rules.
    Utah has, however, provided such an analysis. Utah DEQ evaluated
the air quality impact of the NSR Reform provisions when the State
adopted the rule in 2006. In response to comments that the NSR Reform
rule will allow many more modifications at existing major sources than
the current NSR rules, the State noted that major source permitting
requirements in attainment areas (the PSD permitting program) are only
a portion of Utah's overall permitting requirements and the effect of
the NSR Reform provisions must be viewed in the context of the entire
program, including, in particular, Utah's overall statewide permitting
program and the NSR requirements it imposes on minor sources. These
requirements require all new sources and modifications, whether major
or minor, to apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT), with
limited exceptions (discussed below). Therefore, even when a source
does not trigger PSD, the source must still apply BACT. The net effect
is that emissions will not change if a project is reviewed under the
minor source requirements rather than the PSD regulations. Similarly,
Utah's statewide permitting program requires that sources that exceed
certain emissions thresholds conduct modeling to ensure that their
emissions will not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. The thresholds
that Utah applies for this requirement are the same significance
thresholds as the PSD regulations require. Thus, Utah applies the same
essential control technology and modeling requirements to minor sources
as it does to major sources. Consequently, the fact that a source or
modification might have been subject to the previously-approved PSD
regulation, but is not subject to the revised PSD regulation, is not
likely to result in increased emissions or interfere with NAAQS
attainment.
    In support of this conclusion, the State analyzed 14 different
scenarios to determine how a modification would be affected by the
change in applicability provisions. The scenarios focused on the types
of changes that would no longer be subject to the PSD rule, and
examined whether these modifications would still require Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) and/or modeling to ensure that the NAAQS were
not exceeded. In 12 of the 14 scenarios, under Utah's SIP-approved
minor NSR program, BACT would be required for the modification even if
the modification no longer met the applicability provisions of the PSD
rule.\2\ Therefore, the state concluded that emissions will not
increase under the NSR Reform rule. The two exceptions, where BACT
would not be required, occurred for modifications where emissions from
the source are decreasing. Under these two scenarios, an emissions-
decreasing modification that would have required review under the
previously-approved PSD program could, under the revised rules, be
constructed without the requirement to apply BACT. This is the type of
scenario where the PSD rule created a disincentive for sources to
reduce emissions. Adoption of the NSR Reform rule will remove this
disincentive by allowing sources to install pollution controls or
increase the efficiency of older emission units without requiring BACT,
thereby resulting in reduced emissions overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The federally approved Utah SIP incorporates by reference
``Utah Air Conservation Regulations, R307-1-3.1.8 * * * effective
August 16, 1993.'' 40 CFR 52.2320(c)(28)(i)(B). That regulation
provides that ``[t]he [Utah DEQ] shall issue an approval order if
[it] determines * * * that * * * [t]he degree of pollution control
for emissions, to include fugitive emissions and fugitive dust, is
at least best available control technology except as otherwise
provided in these regulations.'' Utah has since renumbered this
regulation to Utah Administrative Code R307-401-8 but has not
changed the substance of the quoted requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah further evaluated a number of different scenarios to determine
whether modifications that would no longer be subject to PSD would
still be reviewed under Utah's minor source program or whether they
might avoid that review as

well. Utah's minor source permitting program has a number of exemptions
that are located in R307-401-9 through 16. Most of the exemptions would
only apply to sources that would be minor under Utah's previously-
approved PSD regulations as well as under the revised rules. The two
that could possibly apply to sources that would qualify as PSD major
sources under Utah's previously-approved PSD regulations are R307-401-
11, Replacement-in-kind Equipment and R307-401-12, Reduction in Air
Contaminants.
    The replacement-in-kind rule is restrictive, and has been modified
to contain some of the more specific language regarding eligibility
that is found in the PSD rule. Because sources have an incentive to
upgrade to newer, more efficient units and because older technologies
are often no longer available, this rule is not used by sources to
avoid updated technology.
    Similarly, the reduction in air contaminants exemption under R307-
401-12 applies by definition to sources that are decreasing emissions.
As described above, the State believes that removing the disincentive
through NSR Reform is likely to decrease emissions in Utah overall.
    Accordingly, EPA has concluded that adoption of this SIP revision
will maintain or improve air quality and meets the requirements of
section 110(l).
2. Section 193
    a. Summary of Comments Regarding Section 193:
    Section 193 of the CAA states (in relevant part) that ``[n]o
control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in
any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be
modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification
insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant.'' NRDC states that ``[t]he same Utah provisions'' discussed
earlier in its comment violate Section 193. NRDC argues that NSR is a
control requirement and thus the requirements of Section 193 apply to
the NSR rules at issue in the Utah SIP revision. NRDC further alleges
that neither Utah nor EPA has determined that Utah's revisions will
ensure equivalent or greater emissions reductions; to the contrary,
NRDC alleges that ``the modifications ensure that emissions will not be
reduced as much as under the preexisting rules.''
    b. EPA Response to Section 193-Related Comments:
    Utah's NSR Reform rule is focused on the major source permitting
requirements in attainment areas (PSD permitting program). It does not
alter permitting or control requirements for pollutants for which the
area is designated nonattainment, and therefore is not subject to
Section 193. NSR reform in nonattainment areas will be dealt with in a
future rulemaking. Furthermore, as discussed above, the overall effect
of Utah's revisions is expected to be neutral or beneficial. Thus, even
if Section 193 were applicable, Utah's revision would satisfy Section
193 for the same reason that it satisfies Section 110(l).

II. Final Action

A. Rules To Approve Into the Utah SIP

    EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to Utah's SIP that
would, for the most part, incorporate by reference the Federal PSD
requirements, found in 40 CFR 52.21, into the State's PSD program and
replace EPA's prior approvals. The March 7, 2008 submitted revision to
R307-405 incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 as
they existed on July 1, 2007, with the exceptions noted below.
    Utah did not incorporate by reference those sections of the Federal
rules that do not apply to State activities or are reserved for the
Administrator of the EPA. These sections are 40 CFR 52.21(a)(1) (Plan
disapproval), 52.21(q) (Public participation), 52.21(s) (Environmental
impact statements), 52.21(t) (Disputed permit or redesignations), and
52.21(u) (Delegation of authority). Utah did not incorporate by
reference the vacated Federal requirements for ``Equipment
Replacement,'' ``Clean Unit,'' and ``Pollution Control Project.''
    Utah's March 7, 2008 submittal of the incorporation by reference
revisions to R307-405 describes the circumstances in which the term
``Administrator'' continues to mean the EPA Administrator, and when it
means instead the Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board.
R307-405-3(3)(d)(ii)) identifies the following provisions in R307-405
where the term ``Administrator'' shall be changed to ``EPA
Administrator:'' 40 CFR 52.21(b)(17), 52.21(b)(37)(i), 52.21(b)(43),
52.21(b)(48)(ii)(c), 52.21(b)(50)(i), 52.21(l)(2), 52.21(p)(2), and
51.166(q)(2)(iv).
    As noted above, Utah did not incorporate by reference 40 CFR
52.21(q) (Public participation). Utah has instead incorporated by
reference 40 CFR 51.166(q) (Public participation) at Utah rule R307-
405-18. The provisions in 40 CFR 51.166 identify what a SIP must
contain for EPA to approve a PSD permit program, and generally mirror
the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, Utah added in
Utah rule R307-405-18(2) an additional provision that modifies the PSD
permit public participation requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(q) to replace
``within a specified time period'' in 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1) with ``within
30 days of receipt of the PSD permit application.''
    The following provisions in R307-405 do not incorporate by
reference 40 CFR 52.21, but instead either add language that is
currently contained in the Utah SIP or add language specific to Utah's
PSD program: R307-405-4 (``Area Designations''), R307-405-5 (``Area
Redesignation''), and R307-405-8 (``Exclusions From Increment
Consumption''). We have determined that these provisions are consistent
with the requirements for SIP approved states contained in 40 CFR
51.166(e), (f), and (g).
    EPA is also taking final action on approval of the September 15,
2006 submitted revision R307-110-9 (``Section VIII, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality Rules'') to indicate
that the most currently amended version is March 8, 2006. Section VIII
summarizes, in a narrative fashion, the current federal PSD
requirements, in addition to the Utah specific permitting requirements
for new and modified sources and area designations. We are approving
the March 8, 2006 version of Section VIII into the SIP to replace the
federally-approved December 18, 1992 version currently in the Utah SIP.
    As described above, the requirements included in Utah's PSD
program, as specified in R307-405 are substantively the same as the
Federal PSD provisions due to Utah's incorporation of the federal rules
by reference. The revisions Utah made, in consideration of the
requirements provided in 40 CFR 52.21, were reviewed by EPA and found
to be as stringent as the requirements for PSD programs in 40 CFR
51.166, except as noted above regarding the provision in R307-405-
3(3)(a)(i). Therefore, EPA has determined that, except for R307-405-
3(3)(a)(i), the rule revisions to R307-405 and R307-110-9 are
consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption,
and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality, as set forth in 40 CFR 51.166, and are
approvable.

B. Rules To Disapprove and Therefore Not Incorporate Into the Utah SIP

    Utah has adopted a specific definition of ``Major Source Baseline
Date,'' found at R307-405-3(3)(a)(i), in its revised PSD rule. This
definition deviates from the definition found in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)
and the corresponding requirement for state PSD programs at
51.166(b)(14). Utah's definition specifies that the major source
baseline date for particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less
(PM10) is the ``date that EPA approves the PM10
maintenance plan that was adopted by the Board on July 6, 2005'' for
Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties. The requirement for State
programs at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14) specifies January 6, 1975 as the major
source baseline date for particulate matter, and the current EPA-
approved SIP for Utah also specifies January 6, 1975 as the major
source baseline date for PM-10 for the entire State (refer to Utah's
SIP-approved rule R307-101-2 ``Definitions''). EPA is not aware of any
authority for it to approve into a SIP a different major source
baseline date other than January 6, 1975. Further, we note there is no
provision in the CAA for using a different date if an area was in a
legally designated non-attainment status on January 6, 1975. EPA is
taking final action to disapprove Utah's definition of ``Major Source
Baseline Date,'' and therefore, the current federally-approved
definition found in R307-101-2 would continue to apply as a federally
enforceable provision in lieu of the State-adopted version.

C. Scope of Action

    We are taking final action to partially approve revisions to R307-
405 (``Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas
(PSD)'') and to approve revisions to R307-110-9 (``Section VIII,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of the Utah Air Quality
Rules''). EPA is taking final action to disapprove R307-405-3.(3)(a)(i)
because it defines ``Major Source Baseline Date'' in a manner
inconsistent with the federal definition found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14).
In all other respects we are approving the State's March 7, 2008
submitted revisions to R307-405, and the State's September 15, 2006
submitted revisions of R307-110-9.
    Utah has not demonstrated authority to implement and enforce these
rules within ``Indian country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.5.
Therefore, this SIP approval does not extend to ``Indian country'' in
Utah.\3\ See CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include enforceable
emission limits), 110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate authority
under State law to carry out SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs
shall include enforceable emission limits). This is consistent with
EPA's previous approval of Utah's PSD program, in which EPA
specifically disapproved the program for sources within Indian
Reservations in Utah because the State had not shown it had authority
to regulate such sources. See 40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent
with EPA's approval of Utah's title V air operating permits program.
See 61 FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) (interim approval does not
extend to Indian country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 (October 4, 2001) (full
approval does not extend to Indian country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1)
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe
even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a
reservation. In Utah, Indian country includes, but is not limited
to, the Northwestern Band of the Shoshoni Nation, the Paiute Indian
Tribe of Utah, the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, and the Ute
Indian Tribe on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 13, 2011 . Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart TT--Utah

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(69) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (69) On September 15, 2006 and March 7, 2008 the State of Utah
submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
contained revised rules pertaining to the State's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) preconstruction permit program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) The Utah Administrative Code (UAC), R307-110-9, Section VIII,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, is amended effective June 16,
2006.
    (B) The Utah Administrative Code (UAC), R307-405, Permits: Major
Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD), (except R307-405-
3(2)(a)(i), ``Major Source Baseline Date'') is amended effective
September 7, 2007.

[FR Doc. 2011-17783 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60073-60075]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82303; File No. SR-CboeBYX-2017-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 11.9, Primary Pegged Order

December 12, 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 November 29, 2017, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraph (c)(8)(A) of
Exchange Rule 11.9, Primary Pegged Order, to restrict the Time-In-Force
(``TIF'') instruction that a displayed Primary Pegged Order that
includes a Primary Offset Amount (defined below) may have to Regular
Hours Only (``RHO'') \5\ or Day \6\ if entered during Regular Trading
Hours.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(7) (defining a TIF of RHO as a
limit or market order that is designated for execution only during
Regular Trading Hours).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b)(2) (defining a TIF of Day as a
limit order to buy or sell which, if not executed, expires at the
end of Regular Trading Hours).
    \7\ Regular Trading Hours is defined as the time between 9:30
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See Exchange Rule 1.5(w).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 paragraph (c)(8)(A) of Exchange Rule
11.9, Primary Pegged Order, to restrict the TIF instruction that a
displayed Primary Pegged Order with a Primary Offset Amount may have to
RHO, or if entered during Regular Trading Hours, a TIF instruction of
Day. Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8) describes a Pegged Order as a limit order
that after entry into the System,\8\ the price of the order is
automatically adjusted by the System in response to changes in the
National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO''). Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8)(A)
states that a User \9\ entering a Pegged Order can specify that such
order's price will offset the inside quote on the same side of the
market by an amount set by the User (``Primary Offset Amount''). The
Primary Offset Amount for a displayed Primary Pegged Order must result
in the price of such order being inferior to or equal to the inside
quote on the same side of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(aa).
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some available TIF instructions enable a Primary Pegged Order to
expire at a time past the end of Regular Trading Hours at 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. These TIF instructions are Good-`til Extended Day
(``GTX''), Good-`til Day (``GTD''), Pre-Opening Session `til Extended
Day (``PTX''), and Pre-Opening Session `til Day (``PTD'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(b) (defining each of these TIF
instructions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has observed that Primary Pegged Orders displayed on
the BYX Book with non-aggressive Primary Offset Amounts and similar
orders entered on away exchanges that remain active after the end of
Regular Trading Hours may be pegged to and repriced off of each other
during extended hours trading when no other reference price is
available due to orders expiring or being cancelled at 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. The following example illustrates this scenario. Assume
the NBBO is $0.00 by $0.00. Market Maker 1 enters an order on Exchange
A to buy 100 shares at $10.00 resulting in a new NBBO of $10.00 by
$0.00. Market Maker 2 sends a Displayed Primary Peg order to Exchange B
to buy 100 with a -$0.01 Primary Offset Amount. That order is posted on
Exchange B at $9.99. Market Maker 3 then also sends a Displayed Primary
Peg order to Exchange C to buy 100 with a -$0.01 Primary Offset Amount.
That order is posted on Exchange C at $9.99. The NBBO remains $10.00 by
$0.00. Market Maker 1 cancels their order to buy 100 shares at $10.00.
The NBBO is now $9.99 by $0.00. Exchange B re-prices Market Maker 2's
Displayed Primary Peg order to buy to $9.98, one cent below Market
Maker 3's Displayed Primary Peg order on Exchange C. The NBBO is now
$9.98 by $0.00. Exchange C then re-prices Market Maker 3's Displayed
Primary Peg order to buy to $9.97, one cent below Market Maker 2's
Displayed Primary Peg order on Exchange B. In the absence of new
additional liquidity being entered at the NBB, each order would
continue to be re-priced off each other until each reach $0.00.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ While this behavior may occur in less liquid securities
during Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange has only witnesses [sic]
this occurring after the close of trading, on only one occasion, and
not with the use of any other pegged order type or instruction. The
Exchange intends to monitor the use of displayed Primary Pegged
Orders that include a Primary Offset Amount during Regular Trading
Hours to identify when the situation subject to this proposal may
occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To prevent this from occurring, the Exchange proposes to restrict
the TIF instruction that a displayed Primary Pegged Order with a
Primary Offset Amount may have to RHO, or, if entered during Regular
Trading Hours, a TIF instruction of Day. Doing so, [sic] would cause
displayed Primary Pegged Orders resting on the BYX Book to be eligible
for execution from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Limiting the
TIF instructions to RHO and Day only for displayed Primary Pegged
Orders with Primary Offset Amounts would ensure that these orders are
eligible for execution during Regular Trading Hours, which is the most
liquid portion of the trading day, thereby significantly decreasing the
possibility that such orders may re-price off similar orders entered on
away exchanges in the absence of additional liquidity at the NBB or
NBO. The proposed rule change would cause displayed Primary Pegged
Orders with Primary Offset Amounts to expire at the end of Regular
Trading Hours when a vast majority of orders expire and do not
participate in extended hours trading. As amended, paragraph (c)(8)(A)
of the Rule 11.9 would be amended to state that a displayed Primary
Pegged Order with a Primary Offset Amount shall only include a TIF of
RHO or, if entered during Regular Trading Hours, a TIF instruction of
Day. As is the case today, Users may continue to enter displayed
Primary Pegged Orders with Primary Offset Amounts and TIF instructions
of RHO beginning at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time. However, those orders would
not be eligible for execution until 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the start
of Regular Trading Hours.\12\ Displayed Primary Peg orders with Primary
Offset Amounts and a TIF of Day will be rejected if entered prior to
9:30 a.m., the start of Regular Trading Hours. Primary Pegged orders
that do not include a Primary Offset Amount or that are not displayed
on the BYX Book would have no restrictions on the TIF instructions that
may be attached to the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exchange Rule 11.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system by ensuring that Primary Pegged
Orders with Primary Offset Amounts displayed on the EDGX [sic] Book do
not inadvertently re-price off similar orders on away exchanges in
absence of other liquidity creating the illusion of aberrant prices for
the security. The proposed rule change would restrict the use of the
order type to Regular Trading Hours only, the most liquid part of the
trading day, thereby significantly decreasing the possibly [sic] of
such orders re-pricing off of each other in the absence of additional
liquidity. The Exchange does not propose to amend or alter the
operation of Limit Orders with a Pegged instruction in any other

manner. The proposed rule change also promotes just and equitable
principles of trade by limiting the times at which such orders are
active so as to ensure that the order pegs to prices that reflect the
true NBBO of the security and not the Primary Offset Amount of a pegged
order in the absence of other liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change is intended to ensure Limit Orders with a Primary
Pegged instruction and Primary Offset Amount displayed on the BYX Book
do not inadvertently re-price off similar orders on away exchanges in
absence of other liquidity. It is not intended to have a competitive
impact.

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

    No comments were solicited or received 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 \15\ and paragraph
(f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \17\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change will become operative upon filing. The Exchange stated that such
waiver will enable the Exchange to update its functionality during the
operative delay period such that Limit Orders with a Primary Pegged
instruction and Primary Offset Amount displayed on the BYX Book do not
inadvertently re-price off of similar orders on away exchanges in the
absence of other liquidity. The Commission believes that waiver of the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because it would enable the Exchange to update
its rule without delay to help prevent these types of pegged orders
from inadvertently re-pricing to aberrant prices. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-002 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBYX-2017-002 and should be submitted
on or before January 8, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and (59).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27150 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10082-10083]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03866]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0028; FRL-9922-33-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NSPS for Calciners and Dryers
in Mineral Industries (40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU) (Renewal)'' (EPA
ICR No. 0746.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0251), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28,
2015. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014, during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor
sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0028, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Respondents are owners or operators of calciners and
dryers at mineral processing plants that either process or produce any
of the following minerals and their concentrates or any mixture of
which the majority is any of the following minerals or a combination of
these minerals: Alumina, ball clay, bentonite, diatomite, feldspar,
fire clay, fuller's earth, gypsum, industrial sand, kaolin, lightweight
aggregate, magnesium compounds, perlite, roofing granules, talc,
titanium dioxide, and vermiculite. Particulate matter is the pollutant
regulated under this subpart. Feed and product conveyors are not
considered part of the affected facility. Facilities subject to NSPS
Subpart LL, Metallic Mineral Processing Plants, are not subject to
these standards. There are additional processes and process units at
mineral processing plants listed at section 60.730(b) which are not
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notification
reports, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NSPS. Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of calciners and
dryers at mineral processing plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart UUU).
    Estimated number of respondents: 167 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,436 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $738,649 (per year), which includes $108,550
in either annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs or both.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of two hours in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes.
In the previous ICR, the burden associated with writing the
``notification of physical or operation change'' was incorrectly
calculated with zero respondents. In this ICR, it was corrected to one
respondent.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting-Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-03866 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63501-63502]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0757, FRL-9987-64-OLEM]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Hazardous Waste Specific Unit Requirements, and
Special Waste Processes and Types

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit the information collection request (ICR), Hazardous Waste
Specific Unit Requirements, and Special Waste Processes and Types (EPA
ICR No. 1572.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0050) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting
public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through May 31, 2019. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0757, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR provides a discussion of all of the information
collection requirements associated with specific unit standards
applicable to owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes as defined by 40 CFR part 261. It includes
a detailed description of the data items and respondent activities
associated with each requirement and with each hazardous waste
management unit at a facility. The specific units and processes
included in this ICR are: Tank systems, Surface impoundments, Waste
piles, Land treatment, Landfills, Incinerators, Thermal treatment,
Chemical, physical, and biological treatment, Miscellaneous (subpart
X), Drip pads, Process vents, Equipment leaks, Containment buildings,
and Recovery/recycling.
    With each information collection covered in this ICR, the EPA is
aiding the goal of complying with its statutory mandate under RCRA to
develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, to protect human health and

the environment. Without the information collection, the agency cannot
assure that the facilities are designed and operated properly.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are private sector and State, Local, or Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 261, 264,
265, and 266).
    Estimated number of respondents: 4,543.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 654,097 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $25,535,215 (per year), which includes
$21,852,508 in annualized labor and $3,682,707 in annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The burden hours are likely to stay
substantially the same.

    Dated: November 29, 2018.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2018-26691 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 10850-10851]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March
11, 2010 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.

    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
March 11, 2010 will be: Formal order of investigation; institution and
settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings; an adjudicatory matter; and other matters
relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5053 Filed 3-5-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62527-62529]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24599]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9084-01-OMS]

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records; Amendment to General
Routine Uses

AGENCY: Office of Mission Support, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)

ACTION: Amendment to EPA's existing Privacy Act general routine uses.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Mission Support is giving notice that it proposes to amend its current
list of general routine uses for EPA systems of records in accordance
with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The amended
list of routine uses is consistent with requirements in a memorandum
issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on January 3, 2017
(Memorandum M-17-12 ``Preparing for and Responding to a Breach of
Personally Identifiable Information''). OMB's memorandum requires that
all Federal agencies publish two routine uses for their systems
allowing for the disclosure of personally identifiable information to
the appropriate parties in the course of responding to a breach or
suspected breach of the agency's PII or to assist another agency in its
response to a confirmed or suspected breach.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this routine use notice must do so
by December 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2007-1144, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov: Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: [email protected]. Include the Docket ID number in the
subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: OMS Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code:
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2007-1144. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CUI or otherwise protected through
https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system for the EPA, which means the EPA will
not know your identity or contact information. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going
through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CUI or other information
for which 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 either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is normally open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OMS Docket is (202) 566-
1752.

Temporary Hours During COVID-19

    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to
submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers
may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
about EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit
us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agency Privacy Officer, MC 2831T, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, governs the
means by which the United States Government collects, maintains, and
uses personally identifiable information (PII) in a system of records.
A ``system of records'' is a group of any records under the control of
a federal agency from which information about individuals is retrieved
by name or other personal identifier. The Privacy Act requires each
agency to publish in the Federal Register, for public notice and
comment, a system of records notice (SORN) identifying and describing
each system of records the agency maintains, including the purposes for
which the

agency uses PII in the system and the routine uses for which the agency
discloses such information outside the agency. As provided in OMB
Circular A-108, ``Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review,
Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act,'' agencies may
publish all routine uses applicable to a system of records in a single
Federal Register Notice for that system. However, an agency may publish
a separate notice of routine uses that are applicable to many systems
of records at the agency and then incorporate them by reference into
the notices for specific systems to which they apply. When
incorporating such routine uses by reference, the agency shall ensure
that the routine use section of the SORN clearly indicates which of the
separately published routine uses apply to the system of records and
includes the Federal Register citation where they have been published.
    EPA has previously published twelve general routine uses (see 73 FR
2245, published January 14, 2008). The amended list of general routine
uses included herein reflects a non-substantive change to an existing
EPA general routine use (see 73 FR 2245, published January 14, 2008).
The amended general routine uses implemented by this notice reflect the
two pieces of the existing general routine use in two parts: (a) A
general routine use for disclosure of records in response to a breach
or suspected breach of EPA's systems of records and (b) a general
routine use for disclosure of records in response to a breach or
suspected breach of another agency's systems of records.
    The amended general routine uses are compatible with the purposes
for which the information to be disclosed under these general routine
uses was originally collected. Individuals whose personally
identifiable information is in EPA systems expect their information to
be secured. Sharing their information with appropriate parties in the
course of responding to a confirmed or suspected breach of an EPA
system, or another agency's system, will help EPA and all Federal
agencies protect them against potential misuse of their information by
unauthorized persons. For the reasons above, the existing general
routine use L is amended to reflect the guidance provided in OMB
Memorandum M-17-12, reflected in new general routine uses L and M.
Accordingly, the Agency's general routine uses are as follows:
    A. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes: Information may be
disclosed to the appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or foreign
agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or
implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, if the information
is relevant to a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal
law or regulation within the jurisdiction of the receiving entity.
    B. Disclosure Incident to Requesting Information: Information may
be disclosed to any source from which additional information is
requested (to the extent necessary to identify the individual, inform
the source of the purpose of the request, and to identify the type of
information requested,) when necessary to obtain information relevant
to an agency decision concerning retention of an employee or other
personnel action (other than hiring,) retention of a security
clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a
grant, or other benefit.
    C. Disclosure to Requesting Agency: Disclosure may be made to a
Federal, State, local, foreign, or tribal or other public authority of
the fact that this system of records contains information relevant to
the retention of an employee, the retention of a security clearance,
the letting of a contract, or the issuance or retention of a license,
grant, or other benefit. The other agency or licensing organization may
then make a request supported by the written consent of the individual
for the entire record if it so chooses. No disclosure will be made
unless the information has been determined to be sufficiently reliable
to support a referral to another office within the agency or to another
Federal agency for criminal, civil, administrative, personnel, or
regulatory action.
    D. Disclosure to Office of Management and Budget: Information may
be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget at any stage in the
legislative coordination and clearance process in connection with
private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19.
    E. Disclosure to Congressional Offices: Information may be
disclosed to a congressional office from the record of an individual in
response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the
request of the individual.
    F. Disclosure to Department of Justice: Information may be
disclosed to the Department of Justice, or in a proceeding before a
court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body before which the
Agency is authorized to appear, when:
    1. The Agency, or any component thereof;
    2. Any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity;
    3. Any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity
where the Department of Justice or the Agency have agreed to represent
the employee; or
    4. The United States, if the Agency determines that litigation is
likely to affect the Agency or any of its components,
    Is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and
the use of such records by the Department of Justice or the Agency is
deemed by the Agency to be relevant and necessary to the litigation
provided, however, that in each case it has been determined that the
disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were
collected.
    G. Disclosure to the National Archives: Information may be
disclosed to the National Archives and Records Administration in
records management inspections.
    H. Disclosure to Contractors, Grantees, and Others: Information may
be disclosed to contractors, grantees, consultants, or volunteers
performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative
agreement, job, or other activity for the Agency and who have a need to
have access to the information in the performance of their duties or
activities for the Agency. When appropriate, recipients will be
required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 as
provided in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
    I. Disclosures for Administrative Claims, Complaints and Appeals:
Information from this system of records may be disclosed to an
authorized appeal grievance examiner, formal complaints examiner, equal
employment opportunity investigator, arbitrator or other person
properly engaged in investigation or settlement of an administrative
grievance, complaint, claim, or appeal filed by an employee, but only
to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the
proceeding. Agencies that may obtain information under this routine use
include, but are not limited to, the Office of Personnel Management,
Office of Special Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
Office of Government Ethics.
    J. Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management: Information
from this system of records may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel
Management pursuant to that agency's responsibility for evaluation and
oversight of Federal personnel management.
    K. Disclosure in Connection With Litigation: Information from this
system of records may be disclosed in connection with litigation or
settlement

discussions regarding claims by or against the Agency, including public
filing with a court, to the extent that disclosure of the information
is relevant and necessary to the litigation or discussions and except
where court orders are otherwise required under section (b)(11) of the
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(11).
    L. Disclosure to Persons or Entities in Response to an Actual or
Suspected Breach of Personally Identifiable Information: To appropriate
agencies, entities, and persons when (1) EPA suspects or has confirmed
that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) EPA has
determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there
is a risk of harm to individuals, EPA (including its information
systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national
security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and
persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with EPA's
efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent,
minimize, or remedy such harm.
    M. Disclosure to Assist Another Agency in Its Efforts to Respond to
a Breach of Personally Identifiable Information: To another Federal
agency or Federal entity, when EPA determines that information from
this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient
agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach
or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to
individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information
systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national
security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
    HISTORY: 73 FR 2245 (January 14, 2008).

Vaughn Noga,
Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
[FR Doc. 2021-24599 Filed 11-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21881]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-1575-000]

WPL Crawfish River Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
WPL Crawfish River Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 27, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 7, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07878 Filed 4-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 68105]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23747]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-654, OMB Control No. 3235-0704]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 506(e) of Regulation D Felons and Other Bad Actors
Disclosure Statement

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget the following request for an extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation 506(e) of Regulation D (17 CFR 230.506(e)) under the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires the issuer to
furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a
description in writing of any matters that would have triggered
disqualification under Rule 506(d)(1) of Regulation D, but occurred
before September 23, 2013. The disclosure required by Rule 506(e) is
not filed with the Commission, but serves as an important investor
protection tool to inform investors of an issuer's and its covered
persons, involvement in past ``bad actor'' disqualifying events such as
pre-existing criminal convictions, court injunctions, disciplinary
proceedings, and other sanctions enumerated in Rule 506(d). Without the
mandatory written statement requirements set forth in Rule 506(e),
purchasers may have the impression that all bad actors are disqualified
from participation in Rule 506 offerings.
    We estimate there are 19,908 respondents that will conduct a one-
hour factual inquiry to determine whether the issuer and its covered
persons have had pre-existing disqualifying events before September 23,
2013. Of those 19,908 respondents, we estimate that 220 respondents
with disqualifying events will spend ten hours to prepare a disclosure
statement describing the matters that would have triggered
disqualification under 506(d)(1) of Regulation D, except that these
disqualifying events occurred before September 23, 2013, the effective
date of the Rule 506 amendments. An estimated 2,200 burden hours are
attributed to the 220 respondents with disqualifying events in addition
to the 19,908 burden hours associated with the one-hour factual
inquiry. In sum, the total annual increase in paperwork burden for all
affected respondents to comply with the Rule 506(e) disclosure
statement is estimated to be approximately 22,108 hours of company
personnel time.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 22, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23747 Filed 10-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1866]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0012; OMB No. 1660-0022]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Community Rating System (CRS) Program--
Application Worksheets and Commentary

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

    On Tuesday, November 27, 2012, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) published a notice in the Federal Register at 77 FR 70798
notifying the public that it was submitting a request for review and
approval of a collection of information under the emergency processing
procedures in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation 5 CFR
1320.13.
    In that notice, FEMA stated that it was requesting that the
approval authorize FEMA to use the collection through June 14, 2012.
The correct date is June 14, 2013.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
Loretta A. Cassatt,
Executive Officer, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-00244 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P