[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22478-22479]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08477]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33841; File No. 812-15082]

American Century ETF Trust, et al.

April 16, 2020.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an 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 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the
Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and
12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Applicants: American Century ETF Trust (the ``Trust'') and American
Century Investment Management, Inc. (the ``Adviser'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
that permits: (a) The Funds (defined below) to issue shares
(``Shares'') redeemable in large aggregations only (``creation
units''); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at
negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value; (c) certain
Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more
than seven days after the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain
affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive
securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and
redemption of creation units; and (e) certain registered management
investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same
group of investment companies as the Funds to acquire Shares of the
Funds. The Order would incorporate by reference terms and conditions of
a previous order granting the same relief sought by applicants, as that
order may be amended from time to time (``Reference Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Natixis ETF Trust II, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 33684 (November 14, 2019) (notice) and 33711 (December 10,
2019) (order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Date: The application was filed on December 11, 2019 and
amended on February 24, 2020 and April 9, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on May 11, 2020, and should be accompanied
by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to
be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the
Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants:
American Century ETF Trust and American Century Investment Management,
Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Loomis Moore, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6721 or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Applicants

    1. The Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware and will consist of one or more series operating as a
Fund. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment
company under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect to two Funds
(as defined below, and those Funds, the ``Initial Funds''). The Funds
will offer exchange-traded shares utilizing active management
investment strategies as contemplated by the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, among other things, each day a Fund
will publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different
from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser, a Delaware corporation, will be the investment
adviser to the Initial Funds. Subject to approval by the Fund's board
of trustees, the Adviser (as defined below) will serve as investment
adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other Adviser will be,
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser may enter into sub-advisory
agreements with

other investment advisers to act as sub-advisers with respect to the
Funds (each a ``Sub-Adviser''). Any Sub-Adviser to a Fund will be
registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Trust will enter into a distribution agreement with one or
more distributors. Each distributor will be a broker-dealer registered
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will act as
the distributor and principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds.
Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any distributor
of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser and/or
Sub-Adviser. Any distributor will comply with the terms and conditions
of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested Order
would permit applicants to offer Funds that utilize the NYSE Proxy
Portfolio Methodology. Because the relief requested is the same as the
relief granted by the Commission under the Reference Order and because
the Adviser has entered into a licensing agreement with NYSE Group,
Inc. in order to offer Funds that utilize the NYSE Proxy Portfolio
Methodology,\3\ the Order would incorporate by reference the terms and
conditions of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The NYSE Proxy Portfolio Methodology (as defined in the
Reference Order) is the intellectual property of the NYSE Group,
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Funds and
to any other existing or future registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the
Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with the Adviser (any such entity included in the term
``Adviser''); (b) offers exchange-traded shares utilizing active
management investment strategies as contemplated by the Reference
Order; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the Order and
of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference into the
Order (each such company or series and any Initial Fund, a
``Fund'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference into
the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, 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 the transaction is consistent
with the policies of the registered investment company and the general
purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the
Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of
section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors. Applicants submit that for
the reasons stated in the Reference Order the requested relief meets
the exemptive standards under sections 6(c), 17(b) and 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08477 Filed 4-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27524-27528]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11085]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299; FRL-9910-94-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submittal from the
State of West Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever
new or revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are
promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan is
required to address basic program elements, including, but not limited
to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and
adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of
the standards. These elements are referred to as infrastructure
requirements. West Virginia has made a submittal addressing the
infrastructure requirements for the 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS. This action proposes to approve portions of
this submittal.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0299 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0299. 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 Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston,
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 2013, the State of West Virginia
through the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for
the 1-hour primary SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP
elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements and legal authority that are designed to

assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 110(a) imposes
the obligation upon states to make a SIP submittal to EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submittal may vary depending
upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the submittal.
The content of such SIP submittal may also vary depending upon what
provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
    In the case of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, states typically have
met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submittals in connection with the SO2 NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that
states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

II. Summary of State Submittal

    On June 25, 2013, West Virginia provided a submittal to satisfy
section 110(a)(2) requirements of the CAA, which is the subject of this
proposed rulemaking, for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This submittal
addressed the following infrastructure elements or portions thereof,
which EPA is proposing to approve: section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
(enforcement and minor new source review), (D)(ii), (E)(i) and (iii),
(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). A detailed summary of EPA's
review and rationale for approving West Virginia's submittal may be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking
action which is available on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0299. This rulemaking action does not include
any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains
to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA,
because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in
a separate process. This rulemaking action also does not include
proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA because West
Virginia's June 25, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal did not include
provisions for this element. EPA will take later, separate action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for West
Virginia.
    Additionally, EPA will take separate action on the portions of CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS as they relate to West Virginia's prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting program, as required by part C of Title
I of the CAA. This includes portions of the following infrastructure
elements: section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA had previously
approved West Virginia's PSD program with the narrow exception of the
definition of regulated new source review pollutant for its failure to
include condensables. See 77 FR 63736 (October 17, 2012) and 78 FR
27062 (May 9, 2013) (finalizing limited, narrow disapproval). At this
time, EPA is not proposing action on Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for
visibility protection for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Although West
Virginia's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS referred to West Virginia's regional haze SIP for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility protection, EPA intends to take
separate action on West Virginia's submittal for this element at a
later date as explained in the TSD. EPA will also take later separate
action on West Virginia's June 25, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it
relates to section 128, ``State Boards.''

III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from West Virginia that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for
states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP

requirements.\2\ Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of
such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section
110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, for example because
the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to
meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS
than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure

SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such
that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and
need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure
SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions
of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (SSM); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other

avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in
existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take
appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity
of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to
issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP
is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following elements or portions
thereof of West Virginia's June 25, 2013 SIP revision: section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement and minor new source review),
(D)(i)(II) (visibility protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i) and (iii), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). West Virginia's SIP revision provides
the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. This
proposed rulemaking action does not include action on section
110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA, because this element is not required to
be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA, and will be addressed in a separate process.
    Additionally, EPA will take separate action on the portions of CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2010 SO2
NAAQs as they relate to West Virginia's PSD program, as required by
part C of Title I of the CAA. This includes portions of the following
infrastructure elements: section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
Finally, EPA will take later separate action on section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (interstate transport of emission), (D)(i)(II)
(visibility protection), and (E)(ii) (section 128, ``State Boards'')
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993):
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this proposed rule, pertaining to West Virginia's
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 30, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014-11085 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3820]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01413]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82558; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2017-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of a Series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500
Buffer Protect Strategy ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under
Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund Shares

January 22, 2018.
    On November 21, 2017, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and
trade shares of a series of the Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Buffer
Protect Strategy ETF under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, under
Exchange Rule 14.11(c)(3). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 11, 2017.\3\ The Commission
has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82217 (December 5,
2017), 82 FR 58243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 25, 2018. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates March 11, 2018 as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-CboeBZX-2017-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01413 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40090-40091]
[DOCID:fr14jy06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-415-000]

LLC. Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Application

July 7, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 3, 2006, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline), 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056, filed with the
Commission an application pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas
Act, requesting the issuance of an order permitting and approving the
abandonment, by removal and transfer, of two existing 3,000 horsepower
compressor units located at Trunkline's existing Centerville Compressor
Station in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Trunkline states that it will
relocate the two compressor units to its Kaplan Station in Vermilion
Parish, Louisiana. This filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the application may be directed to Mr.
Stephen T. Veatch, Senior Director, Certificates and Tariffs, 5444
Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas, 77056, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 28, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11179 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P