[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72021-72024]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27427]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93778; File No. SR-BOX-2021-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Order Approving
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to BOX
Exchange LLC and BOX Holdings Group LLC Ownership Transfer Transactions

December 14, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On August 27, 2021, BOX Exchange LLC (``BOX Exchange'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change related to the Exchange and BOX Holdings Group LLC
(``BOX Holdings'') ownership transfer transactions. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on September
15, 2021.\3\ The Commission received one comment on the proposed rule
change.\4\ On September 28, 2021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\6\ On December 13, 2021, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which amended and
superseded the Notice in its entirety.\7\ The Commission is approving
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92926 (September 9,
2021), 86 FR 51410 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Seymour Johnson, dated September 10, 2021,
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-box-2021-19/srbox202119-9221992-250319.htm. The commenter is critical of the
voting and economic interests of Citadel Securities Principal
Investments LLC (``Citadel'') in BOX Holdings Group and believes
that such interests should be reduced.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93156, 86 FR 54780
(October 4, 2021). The Commission designated December 14, 2021, as
the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised the proposal to:
(1) Provide updated and additional ownership and voting percentage
interests information; (2) correct a reference from BOX Holdings to
BOX Options Market LLC; (3) specify that all foreign upstream owners
have signed onto the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement and the BOX Holdings
LLC Agreement. Because Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment that
does not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change
or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, it is not subject to
notice and comment. Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is
available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/box.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a more complete description of all the changes as
proposed, see Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. The Exchange's
charter is a Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement, dated as of May 29, 2020, as amended November 30, 2020
(``BOX Exchange LLC Agreement''). Citigroup Financial Products Inc.
(``Citi''), CSFB Next Fund Inc. (``CSFB''), and MX US 2, Inc.,
(``MXUS2'') each became a Member \9\ of the Exchange on May 10, 2012.
Wolverine Holdings, L.P. (``Wolverine'') is not currently a Member of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``Member'' of the Exchange means the current owners of
Economic Units and Voting Units of the Exchange and includes any
person subsequently admitted to the Exchange as an additional or
substitute Member of the Exchange. See Article 1. 1 of the BOX
Exchange LLC Agreement. ``Economic Units'' refer to equal units of
limited liability company interest in the Exchange collectively
comprising all interests in the profits and losses of the Exchange
and all rights to receive distributions from the Exchange as set
forth in the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement. See Article 2.5(a) of the
BOX Exchange LLC Agreement. ``Voting Units'' refer to equal units of
limited liability company interest in the Exchange collectively
comprising all voting interests of Members with respect to Exchange
matters. See Article 2.5(b) of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX Holdings is a limited liability company, organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware on August 26, 2010. BOX Holdings is the
sole owner of BOX Options Market LLC, a facility of the Exchange (``BOX
Options''). The BOX Holdings charter is a Second Amended and Restated
Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of September 13, 2018
(``BOX Holdings LLC Agreement''). Citi and CSFB each became a Member
\10\ of BOX Holdings on May 10, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``Member'' of BOX Holdings means the current owners of
BOX Holdings Units and includes any Person subsequently admitted to
BOX Holdings as an additional or substitute Member of BOX Holdings.
See BOX Holdings LLC Agreement Sec.  1.1. BOX Holdings ``Units''
means Class A Membership Units, Class B Membership Units, and Class
C Membership Units of BOX Holdings. See Article 1.1 of the BOX
Holdings LLC Agreement. The current Members of BOX Holdings are:
MXUS2, IB Exchange Corp. (``IB''), Citadel, Citi, UBS Americas Inc.
(``UBS''), CSFB, JPMC Strategic Investments I Corporation
(``JPMC''), Wolverine, and Aragon Solutions Ltd (``Aragon'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes several transactions related to the ownership
of the Exchange and BOX Holdings. First, the Exchange would repurchase
the ownership interests in the Exchange held by Citi and CSFB.\11\
Second, BOX Holdings would repurchase the ownership interests in BOX
Holdings held by Citi and CSFB.\12\ Finally, Wolverine would purchase
an ownership interest in the Exchange from MXUS2.\13\ The charts below
summarize the ownership and voting percentage changes in the Exchange
and BOX Holdings that would result from the proposed transactions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, 86 FR at 51411 and Amendment No.
1, supra note 7.
    \12\ See id.
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, 86 FR at 51411-12 and Amendment
No. 1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX Exchange
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ``Economic Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member
of the Exchange means the ratio of the number of Economic Units held
by the Member, directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, to
the total of all of the issued and outstanding Economic Units held
by Members, expressed as a percentage. See Article 1.1 of the BOX
Exchange LLC Agreement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Current        Proposed
                                             economic        economic
          Exchange unit holder              percentage      percentage
                                           interest \14\     interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXUS2...................................           40.00           40.00
IB......................................           20.00           20.00
Citadel.................................            7.68           12.28
Citi....................................            7.68  ..............
UBS.....................................            7.45           11.92
CSFB....................................            7.30  ..............
LabMorgan Corp./JPMC....................            7.30           11.67
Aragon..................................            2.58            4.13

Wolverine...............................  ..............           <0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \15\ ``Voting Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member of
the Exchange means the ratio of the number of Voting Units held by
the Member, directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, to
the total of all of the issued and outstanding Voting Units held by
Members, expressed as a percentage. Voting Units held by a Member of
the Exchange that are ineligible to vote shall not be counted in the
numerator or the denominator when determining such ratio. See id.
    \16\ ``Percentage Interest'' with respect to a Member of BOX
Holdings means the ratio of the number of Units held by the Member
to the total of all of the issued Units, expressed as a percentage
and determined with respect to each class of Units, whenever
applicable. See id.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Proposed
                                          Current voting      voting
          Exchange unit holder              percentage      percentage
                                           interest \15\     interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXUS2...................................           20.00           20.00
IB......................................           20.00           20.00
Citadel.................................           18.73           20.00
Citi....................................           10.00  ..............
UBS.....................................            4.99            4.99
CSFB....................................           10.00  ..............
LabMorgan Corp./JPMC....................            9.99            9.99
Aragon..................................            6.30           20.00
Wolverine...............................  ..............            5.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOX Holdings

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Current        Proposed
        BOX holdings unit holder            percentage      percentage
                                           interest \16\     interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXUS2...................................           42.62           47.89
IB......................................           22.69           25.50
Citadel.................................           13.80           15.50
Citi....................................            7.85  ..............
UBS.....................................            3.23            3.63
CSFB....................................            3.16  ..............
LabMorgan Corp./JPMC....................            3.16            3.55
Aragon..................................            1.12            1.26
Wolverine...............................            2.38            2.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Proposed
    BOX holdings unit holder       Current voting power    voting power
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MXUS2..........................  44.10% (Member votes)..           51.43
                                 45.50% (total Board
                                  voting power).
IB.............................  20.00%.................           20.00
Citadel........................  14.28% (Member votes)..           16.65
                                 14.73% (total Board
                                  voting power).
Citi...........................  8.13% (Member votes)...  ..............
                                 8.38% (total Board
                                  voting power).
UBS............................  3.34% (Member votes)...            3.90
                                 3.45% (total Board
                                  voting power).
CSFB...........................  3.27% (Member votes)...  ..............
                                 3.37% (total Board
                                  voting power).
LabMorgan Corp./JPMC...........  3.27% (Member votes)...            3.82
                                 3.37% (total Board
                                  voting power).
Aragon.........................  1.16% (Member votes)...            1.35
                                 1.19% (total Board
                                  voting power).
Wolverine......................  2.46% (Member votes)...            2.87
                                 0.00% (total Board
                                  voting power because
                                  Wolverine does not
                                  have a Board seat).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the transactions, the Exchange proposes to update
the name of one of its Members in the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
LabMorgan Corp., a Member of the Exchange, has changed its legal name
to ``JPMC Strategic Investments I Corporation.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3, 86 FR at 51413, and Amendment No.
1, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\18\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be 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 Commission also finds that these proposed rule
changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1, are consistent with Section
6(b)(1) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that a national
securities exchange be so organized and have the capacity to carry out
the purposes of the Act, and to comply and enforce compliance by its
members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of
the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement and the BOX Holdings LLC
Agreement contain provisions relating to limitations on ownership and
voting power. In particular, the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement provides
that no Person,\20\ either alone or together with any Related Persons
\21\ may own, directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an
aggregate Economic Percentage Interest greater than 40%.\22\ Exchange
Facility Participants,\23\ alone or together with any Related Persons
may not own, directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an
Economic Percentage Interest greater than 20%.\24\ In addition, no
Person, either alone or together with any Related Persons, may own,
directly or indirectly, of record or beneficially, an aggregate Voting
Percentage Interest greater than 20%.\25\ Moreover, any Member \26\ of
the Exchange involved in a transaction that would result in a Member
having a Voting Percentage Interest or Economic Percentage Interest,
alone or together with any Related Person, of record or beneficially,
of 5% or more will be required to provide written notice to BOX
Exchange 14 days before the transaction that would exceed the 5%
limit.\27\ BOX Exchange will then be required to provide written notice
to the Commission 10 days before the transaction.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Person'' means any individual, partnership, corporation,
association, trust, limited liability company, joint venture,
unincorporated organization and any government, governmental
department or agency or political subdivision thereof. See Article
1.1 of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
    \21\ The term ``Related Person'' is defined in Article 1.1 of
the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
    \22\ See Article 7.3(f) of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
    \23\ ``Exchange Facility Participant'' means a firm or
organization that is registered with the Exchange pursuant to the
Exchange Rules for purposes of participant in trading on any
Exchange Facility. See Article 1.1 of the BOX Exchange LLC
Agreement. ``Exchange Facility'' means any facility of the Exchange
as the term ``facility'' is defined in Section 3 of the Act. See id.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ See Article 7.3(g)(i) of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
    \26\ See supra note 9.
    \27\ See Article 7.3(e) of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement provides that if a
Member \29\ of BOX Holdings or any of its Related Persons \30\ is
approved by the Exchange as a BOX Options Participant,\31\ and if such
Member, alone or together with the Related Persons, own more than 20%
of BOX Holdings Units,\32\ then such Member and any director of BOX
Holdings designated by such Member will not have any voting rights with
respect to any Units owned in excess of 20%.\33\ The BOX Holdings LLC
Agreement further provides that any Member of BOX Holdings involved in
a transaction in which the Member's Percentage Interest \34\ in BOX
Holdings, either alone or together with any Related Person, will meet
or cross the threshold level of 5% or the successive 5% percentage
levels of 10% and 15% will be required to provide written notice to BOX
Holdings 14 days before the transaction.\35\ BOX Holdings will then be
required to provide written notice to BOX Exchange and the Commission
10 days before the transaction.\36\ In addition to these notices, any
transaction of Units that results in the acquisition and holding by any
Person,\37\ alone or with its Related Persons, of a Percentage Interest
that meets or crosses the threshold level of 20% or any successive 5%
percentage interest will be subject to the rule filing process of
Section 19 of the Act.\38\ Further, any transaction that is in
contravention of the notification and filing provisions shall be
void.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra note 10.
    \30\ The term ``Related Person'' is defined in Article 1.1 of
the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
    \31\ ``Options Participant'' means a firm, or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to the Rule 2000 Series for
purposes of participating in trading on a facility of the Exchange.
See BOX Rule 100(a)(41).
    \32\ See supra note 10.
    \33\ See Article 7.4(h) of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
    \34\ See supra note 16.
    \35\ See Article 7.4(e) of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ ``Person'' means any individual, partnership, corporation,
association, trust, limited liability company, joint venture,
unincorporated organization and any government, governmental
department or agency or political subdivision thereof. See Article
1.1 of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
    \38\ See Article 7.4(f) of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
    \39\ See Article 7.4(d) of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ownership and voting limitations are designed to help ensure
that BOX Exchange is able to effectively carry out its regulatory
obligations under the Act. In addition, the limitations are designed to
address the conflicts of interests that might result from a member of a
national securities exchange owning interests in the exchange. The
Commission believes that the Exchange has followed the required notice
procedures set forth in the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement and BOX Holdings
LLC Agreement and that the proposed transactions are in compliance with
the ownership and voting limitations in the governance documents.\40\
The Commission also notes that the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement \41\ and
BOX Holdings LLC

Agreement \42\ contain certain provisions designed to help maintain the
independence of the regulatory functions of BOX Exchange. The
Commission believes that the potential for conflicts of interest or
unfair competition is mitigated by these provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Although a commenter objects to Citadel's ownership and
voting percentages in BOX Holdings increasing because of the
contemplated transaction, the increase is consistent with the
ownership and voting limitations set forth in BOX Holdings governing
documents as previously approved by the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 66871 (April 27, 2012), 77 FR 26323 (May 3,
2012).
    \41\ See, e.g., Article 4.6(b) of the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement
(requiring the Exchange and its Members to cooperate with BOX
Exchange and the Commission and to comply with federal securities
laws); and Article 18.6(b) of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement
(deeming the Exchange, its Members and officers, directors,
employees and agents of each to submit to the jurisdiction of the US
federal courts and the Commission).
    \42\ See, e.g., Article 4.12(b) of the BOX Holdings LLC
Agreement (requiring BOX Holdings and its Members to cooperate with
BOX Exchange and the Commission and to comply with federal
securities laws); Article 11.1 of the BOX Holdings LLC Agreement
(requiring the books and records of BOX Holdings and its Members to
be subject to inspection and copying by the Exchange and the
Commission at all times); and Article 18.6(b) of the BOX Holdings
LLC Agreement (deeming BOX Holdings, its Members and officers,
directors, employees and agents of each to submit to the
jurisdiction of the US federal courts, the Commission, and BOX
Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the ownership of BOX Exchange, the Commission notes
that no BOX Exchange Member will own in excess of 40% of the Exchange's
Economic Units (20% if an Exchange Facility Participant) and 20% of the
Exchange's Voting Units. The board composition of the Exchange will not
change. And although BOX Holdings is not independently responsible for
regulation of BOX Options, its activities with respect to the operation
of BOX Options must be consistent with, and not interfere with, the
self-regulatory obligations of BOX Exchange. Pursuant to the
transaction, with respect to the ownership of BOX Holdings, the voting
power of IB, a BOX Options Participant, would remain at 20.00%.
Further, while MXUS2's voting power in BOX Holdings would increase,
MXUS2's power to appoint directors would remain unchanged.\43\ The
Commission accordingly believes that the proposed transfers are in
compliance with requirements in the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement and the
BOX Holdings LLC Agreement and provisions designed to help maintain BOX
Exchange's regulatory function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ MXUS2 (through MXUS1) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Bourse de Montreal (``Bourse'') and the Bourse is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of TMX Group Limited. Each of MXUS1, Bourse, and TMX
Group Limited is a party to the BOX Exchange LLC Agreement and BOX
Holdings LLC Agreement and has all the rights and responsibilities
of the Members of BOX Exchange and BOX Holdings. See Amendment No 1,
supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\44\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BOX-2021-19), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27427 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86337-86338]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0008]

Request for Nominations for Voting Members for the Genetic
Metabolic Diseases Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting
nominations for voting members excluding consumer and industry
representatives, to serve on the Genetic Metabolic Diseases Advisory
Committee (the Committee) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective
with this notice. FDA seeks to include the views of members of all
gender groups, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals
with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore
encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these
groups.

DATES: Nominations received on or before February 12, 2024 will be
given first consideration for membership on the Committee. Nominations
received after February 12, 2024 will be considered for nomination to
the committee as later vacancies occur.

ADDRESSES: All nominations for membership should be sent electronically
by logging into the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination
Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm and selecting Academician/Practitioner from the dropdown menu
(regardless of whether Academician/Practitioner accurately describes
the nominee), or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management
Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming
a member on an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting
FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Moon Choi, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is requesting nomination for voting
members to fill current vacancies on the Genetic Metabolic Diseases
Advisory Committee. This notice does not include consumer and industry
representative nominations. The Agency will publish two separate
notices announcing the vacancy of a representative of consumer
interests and the vacancy of a representative of industry interests.

I. General Description of the Committee Duties

    The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug and biologic
products for use in the treatment of genetic metabolic diseases and
makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs.

II. Criteria for Voting Members

    The Committee consists of a core of nine voting members, including
the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or
designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of medical
genetics, manifestations of inborn errors of metabolism, small
population trial design, translational science, pediatrics,
epidemiology, or statistics and related specialties. Members will be
invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Non-Federal
members of this committee will serve either as Special Government
Employees or non-voting representatives. Federal members will serve as
Regular Government Employees. The core of voting members may include
one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or
designee, who serves as an individual, but who is identified with
consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of
consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In
addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-
voting representative member who is identified with industry interests.
There may also be an alternate industry representative.

III. Nomination Procedures

    Any interested person may nominate one or more qualified
individuals for membership on the Committee with the exception of the
following: individuals who are not U.S. citizens or nationals cannot be
appointed as Advisory Committee Members (42 U.S.C. 217(a))

in FDA. Self-nominations are also accepted. Nominations must include a
cover letter; a current, complete r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum
vitae for each nominee, including current business and/or home address,
telephone number, and email address if available, and a signed copy of
the Acknowledgement and Consent form available at the FDA Advisory
Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES). Nominations must specify the
advisory committee for which the nominee is recommended. Nominations
must also acknowledge that the nominee is aware of the nomination,
unless self-nominated. FDA will ask potential candidates to provide
detailed information concerning such matters related to financial
holdings, employment, and research grants and/or contracts to permit
evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory
committees.

    Dated: December 7, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27301 Filed 12-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22415-22418]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0464; FRL-9909-50-Region-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Milwaukee-Racine 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Wisconsin's request to redesignate the Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin
nonattainment area (Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties) to
attainment for the 2006 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or standard) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
because the request meets the statutory requirements for redesignation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) submitted this request to EPA on June 8, 2012, and
supplemented it on May 30, 2013. EPA's approval involves several
related actions. EPA is making a determination that the Milwaukee-
Racine area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
EPA is approving, as a revision to the Wisconsin state implementation
plan (SIP), the state's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 in the area. EPA is also approving
the comprehensive emissions inventories submitted by WDNR for Nitrogen
Oxides (NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), primary
PM2.5, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and ammonia as
meeting the requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is
approving Wisconsin's direct PM2.5, SO2,
NOX and VOC Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 2020
and 2025 for the Milwaukee-Racine area.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0464. All documents in the docket are listed on

the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What actions is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA's response to comments?
IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On June 8, 2012, WDNR submitted its request to redesignate the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin nonattainment area (Milwaukee, Racine and
Waukesha Counties) to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the SIP revision containing an emissions
inventory and a maintenance plan for the area. WDNR supplemented its
submission on May 30, 2013. On February 18, 2014, EPA published a
proposed rule (79 FR 9134) making a determination that the Milwaukee-
Racine area is attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard and
that the area has met the requirements for redesignation under section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

II. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA has determined that the Milwaukee-Racine area has attained and
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, that
the area has attained this standard by the applicable attainment date,
and that the area meets the requirements for redesignation under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA proposed this determination based
on monitoring data showing attainment of the standard for the 2008-
2010, 2009-2011, 2010-2012 and 2013 time periods. Monitoring data for
2013 show that the area continues to attain the standard. Because the
area continues to attain the standard and meets all other requirements
for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), EPA is approving the
request from Wisconsin to change the legal designation of the
Milwaukee-Racine area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is taking several actions related to Wisconsin's
PM2.5 redesignation request, as discussed below.
    EPA is approving, pursuant to CAA section 175A, Wisconsin's 2006
24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Milwaukee-Racine area
as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan
is designed to keep the Milwaukee-Racine area in attainment of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.
    EPA is approving, pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3), both the 2006
emission inventories for primary PM2.5,\1\ NOX,
VOC and SO2,\2\ and the 2007 emission inventory for ammonia.
These emission inventories satisfy the requirement in section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA for a comprehensive, current emission inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particulates directly emitted by sources and not formed
in a secondary manner through chemical reactions or other processes
in the atmosphere.
    \2\ NOX and SO2 are precursors for fine
particulates through chemical reactions and other related processes
in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for transportation conformity purposes EPA finds adequate
and is approving Wisconsin's direct PM2.5, SO2,
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 and 2025 for the Milwaukee-Racine
area.

III. What is EPA's response to comments?

    EPA received no adverse comments on the February 18, 2014,
proposal. EPA received four comments in support of the February 18,
2014, proposal from: (1) Harold Pederson, a private citizen, (2) the
WDNR, (3) Eric Bott, with the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce
organization and (4) five members of the United States Congressional
delegation from Wisconsin.
    In addition, EPA would like to correct two of the 98th Percentile
values within Table 1 on page 9136 of the proposed rule (79 FR 9134).
The value (in micrograms per cubic meter) for 2013 for monitor number
550790026 which is currently listed as 19.0 should be changed to 21.2.
The value for 2013 for monitor number 550790099 which is currently 19.7
should be changed to 20.5. The original values were entered incorrectly
due to a calculation error. EPA notes that both of these corrected
values are still below the NAAQS and do not impact the overall outcome
of the redesignation.

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Milwaukee-Racine area has attained and
continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and that
the area has attained this standard by its applicable attainment date.
EPA has also determined that all other criteria have been met for the
redesignation of the Milwaukee-Racine area from nonattainment to
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and for approval
of Wisconsin's maintenance plan for the area. See CAA sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The detailed rationale for EPA's findings and
actions is set forth in the proposed rulemaking of February 18, 2014
(79 FR 9134), and in this final rulemaking.

V. Final Action

    EPA is making a determination that the Milwaukee-Racine area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard by its attainment
date and that the area continues to attain the standard. EPA has
determined that the area has met the requirements for redesignation
under section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the CAA. EPA is thus approving
the request from Wisconsin to change the legal designation of the
Milwaukee-Racine area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also approving Wisconsin's
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Milwaukee-Racine area as a
revision to the Wisconsin SIP, because the plan meets the requirements
of section 175A of the CAA. EPA is approving the comprehensive
emissions inventories submitted by WDNR for NOX,
SO2, primary PM2.5, VOC, and ammonia as meeting
the requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is
approving Wisconsin's direct PM2.5, SO2,
NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 and 2025 for the Milwaukee-Racine
area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of a redesignation to

attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that
would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this
action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not
create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would
need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule
relieves the state of planning requirements for the Milwaukee-Racine
24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA
finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become
effective on the date of publication of these actions.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, these actions merely do not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that reason, these
actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do 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 a determination of attainment is an action that affects the
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of particulate matter national
ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.
    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. These actions are not ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 23, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of these actions 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. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce their requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2584 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2584  Control strategy; Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (d) Approval--On April 22, 2014, EPA approved the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Milwaukee-Racine
nonattainment area (Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties), as
submitted on June 8, 2012. The maintenance plan establishes 2020 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the Milwaukee-Racine area of 2.33 tons
per winter day 1 (tpwd) and 2.16 tpwd direct PM2.5 and 32.62
tpwd and 28.69 tpwd NOX for the years 2020 and 2025,
respectively.
    (e) Approval--On April 22, 2014, EPA approved the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 comprehensive emissions inventories for the Milwaukee-
Racine area (Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties). Wisconsin's 2006
NOX,

directly emitted PM2.5, SO2, VOC, as well as the
2007 supplemental ammonia emissions inventory satisfies the emission
inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for
the Milwaukee-Racine area.

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

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

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

0
4. Section 81.350 is amended by revising the entry for Milwaukee-
Racine, WI in the table entitled ``Wisconsin--PM2.5 [24-Hour
NAAQS]'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.350  Wisconsin.

* * * * *

                                                                    Wisconsin--PM2.5
                                                                     [24-Hour NAAQS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation for the 1997 NAAQS a                           Designation for the 2006 NAAQS a
          Designated area           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date 1                     Type                            Date 2                           Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee-Racine, WI:
    Milwaukee County...............  ...........  Unclassifiable/Attainment............  April 22, 2014...........  Attainment.
    Racine County..................
    Waukesha County................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-08613 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 48699-48700]
[DOCID:fr24au07-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 27930]

Investment Company Act of 1940; In the Matter of Healthshares,
Inc., Xshares Advisors LLC (Formerly, X-Shares Advisors, LLC), XShares
Group LLC (Formerly, Ferghana-Wellspring, LLC) and TDAX Funds, Inc.;
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2550, New York, NY 10170 (812-13358)

 August 20, 2007.

Order Under Sections 6(C) and 17(B) of the Investment Company Act of
1940

    HealthShares, Inc., XShares Advisors LLC (formerly, X-Shares
Advisors, LLC), XShares Group LLC (formerly, Ferghana-Wellspring LLC)
and TDAX Funds, Inc., filed an application on January 19, 2007 and
amendments to the application on June 4, 2007, July 20, 2007 and August
3, 2007, requesting an order to amend a prior order under section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act (``Prior
Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ HealthShares, Inc., et al., Investment Company Act Release
Nos. 27553 (November 16, 2006) (notice) and 27594 (December 7, 2006)
(order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Prior Order permits: (a) Open-end management investment
companies, whose series are based on certain equity securities indices
created by an affiliate of the investment adviser, to issue shares
redeemable only in large aggregations; (b) secondary market
transactions in the shares of the series to occur at negotiated prices;
(c) dealers to sell shares to purchasers in the secondary market
unaccompanied by a prospectus when prospectus delivery is not required
by the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act''); and (d) certain
affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and
receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and
redemption of aggregations of the series' shares. The amended order
permits the applicants to offer additional series that would hold
equity and fixed income securities and provides that certain
representations and undertakings contained in the Prior Order shall not
apply to a series where an entity that creates, compiles, sponsors, or
maintains an underlying index is not an affiliated person, or an
affiliated person of an affiliated person, of the series, its
investment adviser, distributor, promoter, or any sub-adviser

to the series. In addition, the amended order deletes a condition
relating to future relief in the Prior Order.
    On July 27, 2007, a notice of the filing of the application was
issued (Investment Company Act Release No. 27916). The notice gave
interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing and stated that
an order disposing of the application would be issued unless a hearing
was ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the
Commission has not ordered a hearing.
    The matter has been considered and it is found, on the basis of the
information set forth in the application, as amended, that granting the
requested exemptions is appropriate in the public interest, and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    In addition, it is found that the terms of the proposed
transactions, including the consideration to be paid or received, are
reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any
person concerned, and that the proposed transactions are consistent
with the policy of each registered investment company concerned and
with the general purposes of the Act.
    Accordingly, in the matter of HealthShares, Inc., et al. (File No.
812-13358),
    It is ordered, under section 6(c) of the Act, that the requested
exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 24(d) of the Act
and rule 22c-1 under the Act are granted, effective immediately,
subject to the conditions contained in the application, as amended.
    It is further ordered, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act,
that the requested exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the
Act is granted, effective immediately, subject to the conditions
contained in the application, as amended.
    The exemption from section 24(d) of the Act does not affect a
purchaser's rights under the civil liability and anti-fraud provisions
of the Securities Act. Thus, rights under section 11 and section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act extend to all purchasers who can trace
their securities to a registration statement filed with the Commission,
whether or not they were delivered a prospectus in connection with
their purchase.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-16762 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47884-47885]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19547]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0177; FRL-9999-34-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Colorado through the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) on May 2, 2016. Colorado's May 2, 2016 SIP revision
(Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) and the EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan).
The EPA is finalizing approval of Colorado's determination that the
State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first
implementation period through 2018 and requires no substantive revision
at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 11, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0177. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

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

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state (40 CFR
51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. Colorado submitted the
initial regional haze SIP on May 25, 2011 and EPA approved the SIP on
December 31, 2012.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ 77 FR 76871 (December 31, 2012), codified at 40 CFR
52.320(c)(108)(i)(C) and (c)(124).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 2, 2016, Colorado submitted its Progress Report which, among
other things, detailed the progress made in the first period toward
implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in the State's
regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at the twelve
Class I areas within Colorado and a determination of the adequacy of
the State's existing regional haze plan.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on July 17,
2019 (84 FR 34083), the EPA proposed to approve Colorado's Progress
Report. The details of Colorado's submission and the rationale for the
EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM. The EPA did not receive any
public comments on the NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing without revisions its proposed approval of
Colorado's May 2, 2016 Progress Report as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 November 12, 2019. 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,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: September 4, 2019.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320(e) is amended in the table by adding the entry
``Regional Haze 5 Year Progress Report'' after the entry for ``State
Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection, State of
Colorado'' under the heading ``Visibility'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.320   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA effective  Final rule citation/
              Title                effective date       date               date                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Local Ordinances/Resolutions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Visibility

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze 5 Year Progress          11/19/2015      10/11/2019  [Insert Federal      ........................
 Report.                                                            Register
                                                                    citation], 9/11/
                                                                    2019.

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

[FR Doc. 2019-19547 Filed 9-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4914-4917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01244]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68676; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify Fees for Review of Delisting Determinations and Appeal of
Panel Decisions

January 16, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 2, 2013. The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC proposes to modify the fees applicable
to companies seeking review of a denial of initial listing or a
delisting or reprimand determination.
    While changes pursuant to this proposal are effective upon filing,
the Exchange will implement the proposed rule by imposing the new fee
for hearings on companies who receive a Staff Delisting Determination
on or after January 2, 2013. NASDAQ will implement the new fee for
appeals on companies who receive a Panel Decision on or after January
2, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

5815. Review of Staff Determinations by Hearings Panel

    When a Company receives a Staff Delisting Determination or a Public
Reprimand Letter issued by the Listing Qualifications Department, or
when its application for initial listing is denied, it may request in
writing that the Hearings Panel review the matter in a written or an
oral hearing. This section sets forth the procedures for requesting a
hearing before a Hearings Panel, describes the Hearings Panel and the
possible outcomes of a hearing, and sets forth Hearings Panel
procedures.
    (a) Procedures for Requesting and Preparing for a Hearing
    (1)-(2) No changes.
    (3) Fees
    Within 15 calendar days of the date of the Staff Delisting
Determination, the Company must submit a hearing fee of $10,000.
However, if the hearing request relates to a Staff Delisting
Determination dated before January 2, 2013, the Company must submit a
hearing fee [to The Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, to cover the cost of the
hearing,] as follows:
    (A) when the Company has requested a written hearing, $4,000; or
    (B) when the Company has requested an oral hearing, whether in
person or by telephone, $5,000.
    (4)-(6) No changes.
    (b)-(d) No changes.

5820. Appeal to the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council

    A Company may appeal a Panel Decision to the Listing Council. The
Listing Council may also call for review a Panel Decision on its own
initiative. This Rule 5820 describes the procedures applicable to
appeals and calls for review.
    (a) Procedure for Requesting Appeal
    A Company may appeal any Panel Decision to the Listing Council by
submitting a written request for appeal and a fee of [$4,000] $10,000
to the Nasdaq Office of Appeals and Review within 15 calendar days of
the date of the Panel Decision. However, if the appeal relates to a
Panel Decision dated before January 2, 2013, the applicable fee is
$4,000. An appeal will not operate as a stay of the Panel Decision.
Upon receipt of the appeal request and the applicable fee, the Nasdaq
Office of Appeals and Review will acknowledge the Company's request and
provide deadlines for the Company to provide written submissions.
    (b)-(e) No changes.
* * * * *

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. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to the NASDAQ Listing Rule Series 5800, companies may seek
review of a determination by NASDAQ Staff to deny initial listing or
delist a company's securities or to issue a Public Reprimand Letter, by
requesting an oral or written hearing before an independent Hearings
Panel. Listing Rule 5815(a)(3) provides that to request a hearing, the
Company must, within 15 calendar days of the date of the Staff
Delisting Determination, submit a hearing fee in the amount of $4000
for a written hearing or $5,000 for an oral hearing. Companies may also
appeal a Panel decision to the NASDAQ Listing and Hearing Review
Council (the ``NLHRC''). Listing Rule 5820(a) requires a company
seeking an appeal to submit a written request and a fee of $4,000
within 15 days of the date of the Panel Decision.
    NASDAQ last changed these fees in 2001.\3\ NASDAQ proposes to
increase these fees to $10,000. NASDAQ also proposes to eliminate the
distinction in fees between a written and an oral hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44374 (April 5, 2001) 66
FR 18837 (April 11, 2001) (approving SR-NASD-2001-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is increasing the fees because the costs incurred in
preparing for and conducting appeals have increased since the fees were
last changed. The costs of the delisting process include significant
Staff time and resources to prepare for and conduct hearings and
appeals. Staff prepares written submissions in support of a delisting
determination; attends hearings; provides legal counsel and support to
independent Panelists and the NLHRC; drafts final decisions; manages
and coordinates the appeals dockets; and monitors post-hearing
compliance efforts. NASDAQ also incurs the costs of transcription of
the proceedings and expenses for the Panelists and members of the
NLHRC. In addition, the Exchange incurs costs to upgrade electronic
systems for tracking companies and maintaining a clear record. It also
maintains lists on its Web site, updated every business day, that
reflect the status of all companies in the deficiency process.\4\
Finally, NASDAQ expends regulatory resources to ensure transparent
communication of appeal rules and procedures to listed companies by
continually improving our electronic interface with them.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/DelDefOpenReport.pdf and https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/IssuesPendingDelisting.pdf.
    \5\ NASDAQ has developed a user-friendly electronic NASDAQ
Listing Center and Reference Library, the maintenance of which
requires resources on an on-going basis. See https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/MaterialHome.aspx?mcd=LQ. Users can view
more than 30 Frequently Asked Questions about the hearings and
appeals processes and summaries of almost 100 NLHRC decisions. See
also https://listingcenter.nasdaqomx.com/assets/Get_Started_Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of these expenses have increased in the eleven years since the
fees were set in 2001. In addition, appeals have become more
complicated and

contentious than when fees were last modified. As a result, NASDAQ
devotes more Staff time and resources now to a typical appeal than was
historically the case. In response to increasing complexities, NASDAQ
has made new hires in its investigatory group and on several occasions
engaged an outside law firm or an investigative firm to assist in
connection with matters under review.
    Accordingly, NASDAQ proposes to increase fees to $10,000 for a
Panel hearing, whether the company elects a written or an oral hearing;
and $10,000 for an appeal to the NLRHC. NASDAQ recognizes that in the
past, fees for a written hearing have been lower than fees for an oral
one. The Exchange believes that the basis for this historical
distinction is unclear, and upon review, found to be unwarranted. The
cost to a company that elects a written hearing may be lower because
the company's related expenses, such as travel and legal
representation, may be avoided. However, the costs to the Exchange
associated with a written hearing are virtually identical to those
associated with an oral hearing, differing only by the cost of
transcribing a hearing. NASDAQ believes that the fees should reflect
that Staff and Panels expend the same resources, time, and effort in
ensuring a full and fair hearing for all hearing participants, and both
processes afford the same benefit to the issuer. Therefore, while the
proposed amendment preserves the availability of a written hearing to
any company that requests one, NASDAQ proposes to charge the same fee
for a written hearing as for an oral one.
    The revised fees for a hearing will be applicable to issuers that
are sent a Staff Delisting Determination on or after January 2, 2013.
The revised fees for an appeal of a Panel Decision will be applicable
to issuers that receive a Panel Decision on or after January 2, 2013.
The current fees will remain in effect for any company that receives a
Staff Determination or a Panel Decision before that date.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Companies are notified of the fees associated with a request
for a hearing in the Staff Delist Determination letter. They are
notified of the fees associated with an appeal in the Panel
Decision, which includes a notice of the right to appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised fees will allow NASDAQ to recoup a portion of the
expenses it incurs in the delisting process that will more closely
approximate the actual costs associated with the appeal process. The
Exchange has reviewed all costs associated with delisting appeals and
does not expect or intend that the fees will exceed the costs.\7\
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for a Panel or
NLHRC review of a delisting determination are comparable to the appeal
fees of other national securities exchanges. For example, NYSE MKT LLC
has recently increased its fees for appeal of a Staff delisting
determination to $8,000 for a written and $10,000 for an oral hearing,
and $10,000 for an appeal of a Panel decision to the Exchange Committee
on Securities.\8\ NYSE rules provide that a listed company must pay a
$20,000 fee in connection with a delisting appeal.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A precise cost-per-hearing analysis is not possible given
the need to maintain an appeals infrastructure for which the
Exchange incurs expenses irrespective of the number of hearings
requested in a given year. Economies of scale may result in a lower
cost-per-hearing in a year when NASDAQ receives more requests than
when it receives fewer requests. Over the past 2 years, the number
of hearings requests has been lower than in the previous 2 years,
but the complexity of the appeal issues has demanded significantly
greater Exchange resources.
    \8\ Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 67907 (September 21,
2012), 77 FR 59442 (September 27, 2012) (SR-NYSEMKT-2012-45). See
also Sections 1203 and 1205 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide.
    \9\ Section 804.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed fee increase is reasonable because it
will better reflect NASDAQ's costs related to the appeal process.
NASDAQ has not increased the fees for an appeal since 2001,\12\ but has
handled increasingly complex matters while providing issuers and
investors with an increasingly efficient and transparent appeal
process. The fees will help offset the costs of conducting appeals,
which serve to ensure that NASDAQ's listing standards are properly
enforced for the protection of investors. The proposed changes are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply
equally to all companies that choose to appeal a delisting
determination. In addition, aligning the fees for hearings with the
underlying costs of the delisting process will help minimize the extent
that companies that are compliant with all listing standards may
subsidize the costs of review for companies that are non-compliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44374, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ also believes that the proposed fees are consistent with the
investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in
that they are designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market and national
market systems, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the fees are designed to provide adequate
resources for appropriate preparation to conduct Panel hearings and
appeals of Panel Decisions, which help to assure that the Exchanges'
listing standards are properly enforced and investors are protected.
Finally, the proposed change maintains a fair procedure by which listed
companies may avail themselves of an appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ also believes that the proposed changes are consistent with
Section 6(b)(7) of the Act,\14\ in that the proposed fees are
consistent with the provision by the Exchange of a fair procedure for
the prohibition or limitation by the Exchange of any person with
respect to access to services offered by the Exchange. In particular,
the Exchange believes that the proposed amended fees should not deter
listed issuers from availing themselves of the right to appeal because
the fees will still be set at a level that will be affordable for
listed companies. NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed fee is
unduly burdensome or would discourage any company from seeking a
hearing or appeal. Finally, NASDAQ notes that the proposed fees are
comparable to the fees charged for similar appeal processes by other
exchanges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15. U.S.C. 78f(b)(7).
    \15\ See footnotes 8 and 9, supra, and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ 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. As discussed above,
this proposed fee is based on the increase in costs to the Exchange to
provide a delisting review process, which is in turn necessary to
ensure investor protection as well as a transparent process for
issuers. Moreover, the market for listing services is extremely
competitive and listed companies may freely choose alternative venues
based on the aggregate fees assessed, and the value provided by

each listing. This rule proposal does not burden competition with other
listing venues, which are similarly free to align their fees on the
costs incurred by the process they offer. For this reason, and the
reasons discussed in connection with the statutory basis for the
proposed rule change, NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule
change will result in any burden on competition for listings.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\16\ NASDAQ has
designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-004. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-004 and should
be submitted on or before February 13, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2013-01244 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55527-55528]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24268]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-9986-12-ORD]

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security
Subcommittee Meeting--December 2018

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security Subcommittee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m., Thursday, December 13, 2018, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.
and Friday, December 14, 2018 from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. All times noted
are Eastern Time and approximate. The meeting may adjourn early if all
business is finished. Attendees should register by December 5, 2018.
Requests for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted
up to one business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EPA's RTP Main Campus
Facility, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765,
by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to:
[email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security Subcommittee Docket, Mail Code:
2822T, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, William Jefferson Clinton West Building,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-ORD-2015-0765. Note: this is not a mailing address. 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-ORD-
2015-0765. 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 www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
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. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. 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. 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's public
docket visit the

EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Homeland Security Subcommittee Docket, EPA/DC,
William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Tom Tracy, Mail Code 8104R, Office of Science Policy, Office
of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at:
(202) 564-6518; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    General Information: The meeting is open to the public. Any member
of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda, attending the
meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Tom Tracy,
the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above. Individuals
making an oral presentation will be limited to a total of three
minutes. For security purposes, all attendees must provide their names
to the Designated Federal Officer or register online at https://epa-bosc-homelandsecurity-subcommittee.eventbrite.com by December 5, 2018,
and must go through a metal detector, sign in with the security desk,
and show REAL ID Act-compliant government-issued photo identification
to enter the building. Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 15
minutes prior to the start of the meeting to allow sufficient time for
security screening. Proposed agenda items for the meeting include but
are not limited to the following: Overview of materials provided to the
subcommittee, update on ORD's Homeland Security Research Program and
the draft Strategic Research Action Plan, Review of charge questions,
and Subcommittee discussion.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Tom Tracy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. To
request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy,
preferably at least ten days prior to the meeting, to give the EPA as
much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated October 26, 2018.
Fred S. Hauchman,
Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-24268 Filed 11-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P