For the EPA's 2016 base year modeling, the EPA undertook a large
collaborative multi-year effort with states (including Texas) and other
stakeholder input in developing the 2016 emission inventories including
2016v2, so that the EPA's modeling would be based on the best data
available. Using a 2016 base year also provides a more recent platform
that shortens the number of years to project emission changes, reducing
uncertainties in the 2023 projection compared to TCEQ's projection from
a 2012 base to 2023 or the EPA's earlier 2011 base year modeling. Use
of a more recent 2016 base year also allows for the use of monitored
DVs from a more recent period. The combination of these and other
issues discussed in the EPA Region 6 TSD result in less model
uncertainty compared to TCEQ's 2012 base year modeling and has provided
a better estimate of 2023 ozone levels and therefore, we believe a more
reliable tool for predicting which areas of the country will be
nonattainment or have difficulty maintaining the standard as well as
assessing contributions from upwind states.
    The EPA's modeling using both 2011 and 2016 base year periods
identified that Texas was linked to nonattainment and/or maintenance
receptors in 2023 in the Midwest Region (Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Michigan), while TCEQ's modeling using a 2012 base year indicated only
linkages to western receptors. As discussed above and in the EPA Region
6 TSD, the TCEQ's modeling is underestimating projected ozone levels in
the Midwest Region for 2023. If TCEQ's 2023 modeled DVs were closer to
recent observed monitoring data and anticipated 2023 monitored DVs,
TCEQ would likely have also identified nonattainment and/or maintenance
receptors in the Midwest Region.
    To summarize, TCEQ did its own modeling at Step 1. Our analysis
shows that TCEQ's modeling likely underestimates ozone levels at
potential receptors and that TCEQ's methodology for identifying
maintenance receptors used to identify maintenance receptors fails to
reasonably identify areas that will have difficulty maintaining the
NAAQS.
2. Evaluation of Information Provided by TCEQ Regarding Step 2
    TCEQ, like the EPA, used a 1 percent of the ozone NAAQS (or 0.7
ppb) as the ``linkage'' threshold to identify states as ``linked'' for
contributions it made to areas with projected air quality problems.
Although TCEQ asserted that the EPA treats the 1 percent threshold as
the threshold by which the EPA determines ``significant contribution''
this is in fact incorrect. The EPA, like TCEQ, uses the 1 percent
contribution threshold to identify those linkages between a
contributing upwind state and a receptor projected to have air quality
problems that warrant further review and additional analysis. We
therefore endorse TCEQ' use of the 1 percent contribution threshold to
identify linkages requiring further analysis. However, because we
propose to disapprove TCEQ's identification of nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptors (at Step 1) due to underestimations in TCEQ's
modeling and their unsupported methodology of identifying maintenance
receptors, their submission as to Step 2 is also flawed. We note,
however, that even in its own modeling, TCEQ has identified
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors to which it contributed more
than 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e., identified linkages warranting
additional analysis at Step 3).
3. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for
Texas
    As described in Section I and elsewhere in this action, the EPA
performed air quality modeling using the 2016v2 emissions platform to
project design values and contributions for 2023. This data was
examined to determine if Texas contributes at or above the threshold of
1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. As shown in Table TX-4, the data
\106\ indicate that in 2023, emissions from Texas are projected to
contribute greater than 1 percent of the standard to both

nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors in the Chicago, IL-IN-WI
nonattainment area (4 Cook County, IL receptors and 2 Kenosha County,
WI receptors) and the Milwaukee, WI nonattainment area (one Racine
County receptor).\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring
sites nationwide are provided in the file:
``2016v2_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx'', which is included in docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \107\ These modeling results are consistent with the results of
a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 2016v1 emissions platform
which became available to the public in the fall of 2020 in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as noted in Section I of this action. That
modeling showed that Texas had a maximum contribution greater than
0.70 ppb to at least one nonattainment or maintenance-only receptor
in 2023. These modeling results are included in the file ``Ozone
Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'' in
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.

      Table TX-4--Projected Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors With Texas Linkages Based on EPA 2016v2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Texas
   Receptor (site ID, county, state)         Nonattainment/        2023  average   2023  maximum   contribution
                                               maintenance           DV (ppb)        DV (ppb)          (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170310001, Cook, IL...................  Maintenance.............            69.6            73.4            0.86
170310032, Cook, IL...................  Maintenance.............            69.8            72.4            1.46
170314201, Cook, IL...................  Maintenance.............            69.9            73.4            1.15
170317002, Cook, IL...................  Maintenance.............            70.1            73.0            1.58
550590019, Kenosha, WI................  Nonattainment...........            72.8            73.7            1.72
550590025, Kenosha, WI................  Maintenance.............            69.2            72.3            1.81
551010020, Racine, WI.................  Nonattainment...........            71.3            73.2            1.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that the results of the EPA (2011 and 2016 base year)
and TCEQ (2012 base year) modeling indicated different receptors and
linkages at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-Step interstate transport framework.
These differing results regarding receptors and linkages can be
affected by the varying meteorology from year to year, but we do not
think the differing results mean that the modeling or the EPA or the
State's methodology for identifying receptors or linkages is inherently
unreliable. Rather, the three separate modeling runs all indicated: (1)
There were receptors that would struggle with nonattainment or
maintenance in the future; and (2) Texas was linked to some set of
these receptors, even if the receptors and linkages differed from one
another in their specifics (e.g., a different set of receptors were
identified to have nonattainment or maintenance problems, or Texas was
linked to different receptors in one modeling run versus another).
These results indicate that emissions from Texas were substantial
enough to generate linkages at Steps 1 and 2 to some downwind
receptors, under varying assumptions and meteorological conditions,
even if the precise set of linkages changed between modeling runs.
Under these circumstances, we think it is appropriate to proceed to a
Step 3 analysis to determine what portion of emissions from Texas
should be deemed ``significant.'' In doing so, we are not agreeing with
the methods and assumptions contained in TCEQ's modeling (see previous
discussion and the EPA Region 6 TSD included in the docket for this
proposal for further discussion on evaluation of that modeling), or
that we consider our own earlier modeling to be of equal reliability
relative to more recent modeling. However, where alternative or older
modeling generated linkages, even if those linkages differ from
linkages in the EPA's most recent set of modeling (EPA 2016v2), that
information provides further evidence, not less, in support of a
conclusion that the State is required to proceed to Step 3 to further
evaluate its emissions.
    Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information
submitted by TCEQ and based on the EPA 2016v2 modeling results for
2023, the EPA proposes to find that Texas is linked at Steps 1 and 2
and has an obligation to assess potential emissions reductions from
sources or other emissions activity at Step 3 of the 4-Step framework.
4. Evaluation of Information Provided by TCEQ Regarding Step 3
    At Step 3 of the 4-Step interstate transport framework, a state's
emissions are further evaluated, considering multiple factors,
including air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance and, thus, must be eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    To effectively evaluate which emissions in the state should be
deemed ``significant'' and therefore prohibited, states generally
should prepare an accounting of sources and other emissions activity
for relevant pollutants and assess potential additional emissions
reduction opportunities and resulting downwind air quality
improvements. The EPA has consistently applied this approach (i.e.,
Step 3 of the 4-Step interstate transport framework) when identifying
emissions contributions that the Agency has determined to be
``significant'' (contribution to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance) in each of its prior Federal, regional ozone transport
rulemakings, and this interpretation of the statute has been upheld by
the Supreme Court. See EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While
the EPA has not directed states that they must conduct a Step 3
analysis in precisely the manner the EPA has done in its prior regional
transport rulemakings, state implementation plans addressing the
obligations in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ``any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State'' from
emitting air pollutants which will contribute significantly to downwind
air quality problems. Thus, states must complete something similar to
the EPA's analysis (or an alternative approach to defining
``significance'' that comports with the statute's objectives) to
determine whether and to what degree emissions from a state should be
``prohibited'' to eliminate emissions that will ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance of''
the NAAQS in any other state. TCEQ did not demonstrate such an analysis
in their SIP submission. We therefore propose that TCEQ was required to
analyze emissions from the sources and other emissions activity from
within the State to determine whether its contributions were
significant, and we propose to disapprove its submission because Texas
failed to do so.
    Instead, as noted in Section V.A of this action, TCEQ interpreted
the Act's requirements as only requiring an

analysis of emission reductions where ``there is a persistent and
consistent pattern of contribution on several days with elevated
ozone.'' TCEQ asserted that it would make the determination of whether
such pattern existed based on a weight-of-evidence approach that takes
into consideration air quality factors such as: Current attainment
status of the monitors, design value trends, the meteorological
conditions that lead to high ozone formation at the monitor, the number
of days with elevated observed ozone, back trajectories, Texas'
relative contribution on modeled high ozone days, Texas' contribution
as part of the collective interstate contribution to future modeled
DVs, alternate contribution method analysis, and model sensitivity runs
to reductions of Texas' emissions on receptors. However, TCEQ stated
that it did not consider or analyze all factors for every monitor.
Thus, different factors were analyzed for the receptors in different
regions (Colorado, Arizona, and Southern California). The EPA has
reviewed the different factors that TCEQ provided for each of the
regions in the EPA Region 6 TSD, but we will provide a brief summary of
the evaluation below. TCEQ also asserted that use of the 1 percent
threshold as the ``sole'' definition of significant contribution for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is inappropriate. Based on the application of
selected factors for each of the monitors to which TCEQ's modeling
found that it was linked, TCEQ concluded that none of its contributions
to any other states were significant.
    As explained above, TCEQ has mischaracterized the EPA's
interpretation of the CAA in stating that the EPA defines significant
contribution ``solely'' using a 1 percent threshold. The EPA, like
TCEQ, uses the 1 percent threshold to identify areas for further
analysis. The difference is that the EPA in past analyses has examined
potential emission reductions in linked upwind states and the air
quality impacts at downwind receptors that would result from the
implementation of those reductions to assess which contributions are
``significant.'' This interpretation of significant contribution, as
discussed above, has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the D.C.
Circuit.
    As an initial matter, the EPA believes source apportionment
modeling, as performed by the EPA and also by TCEQ, to determine which
states are linked is an appropriate tool to identify impacts that are
persistent enough to impact a downwind receptors ability to attain or
maintain the standard. This approach is described in more detail above
in Section II.B.4 of this action, but, in summary, averages the
contributions from an upwind state for up to 10 days, which is
preferred, (but a minimum 5 days) at a given receptor. Given the ozone
standard is an average of the fourth high value from each of three
years, the EPA technique, also used by Texas, is appropriate to
identify impacts of sufficient persistence to impact a downwind
receptor's ability to attain or maintain the standard.
    The EPA reviewed TCEQ's evaluation of the current attainment status
of the monitors and design value trends, and concludes, as described in
more detail in the EPA Region 6 TSD, that the provided information does
not support the large decreases in ozone levels that TCEQ's modeling
projects will occur by 2023. The analysis for California and Colorado
receptors provides evidence that TCEQ's photochemical modeling is
overestimating the ozone reductions expected at these receptors between
2012 and 2023 and actually presents evidence that more nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors should have been identified.
    The EPA also reviewed the trends in the number of high ozone days
per year provided by TCEQ for Colorado and California. While this data
supports that the number of ozone exceedance days is improving, neither
the analysis of the number of high ozone days in Colorado or California
provide any evidence to refute the TCEQ's photochemical modeling
results that show these areas should be considered nonattainment and/or
maintenance receptors. TCEQs modeling overestimates ozone reductions
yet still shows Texas linked to receptors at both nonattainment and
maintenance levels in 2023.
    The TCEQ cited a conceptual model of ozone formation for areas in
Southern California. TCEQ indicated that Southern California is
isolated and transport into the basin is unlikely on a frequent basis,
but this information does not refute the TCEQ's modeling. As discussed
in Section III.B.3 of this action, photochemical modeling is the most
sophisticated tool available to estimate future ozone levels and
contributions to those modeled future ozone levels. Consideration of
the different processes that affect primary and secondary pollutants at
the regional scale in different locations is fundamental to
understanding and assessing the effects of emissions on air quality
concentrations. TCEQ's modeling showed transport at 10 monitors having
contributions greater than 0.7 ppb on average for the 5-10 days used in
the modeling analyses. Considering the form of the standard, this is a
sufficient number of days to determine if an impact is persistent
enough to impact an area's ability to attain or maintain the standard.
    TCEQ used the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) HYSPLIT \108\ model to produce back trajectories for all the
monitored ozone exceedance days (2007-2016) for the five receptors in
Colorado and 10 receptors in Southern California to evaluate how many
of the back trajectories went through Texas. TCEQ also used data from
these back trajectories to do an endpoint count analysis. We note that
we have several concerns with how TCEQ performed the back trajectories
including start time and heights, length (number of hours) of the back
trajectory, inappropriate removal of some back trajectories based on
start height, center-line height touch down, and trajectory center-line
height when over Texas, and inappropriate counting of trajectories by
not considering that the center-line represents the centerline of a
much wider area of air parcels that could have reached the monitor/
receptor. Due to these concerns, as discussed in more detail in the EPA
Region 6 TSD, the EPA finds the results of TCEQ's back trajectory and
endpoint analysis flawed (underestimates back trajectories that reach
Texas) and do not provide evidence that refutes the TCEQ photochemical
modeling analysis results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See FN 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that even valid back trajectories are of limited use as
HYSPLIT simply estimates the path a parcel of air backward in hourly
steps for a specified length of time. HYSPLIT estimates the central
path in both the vertical and horizontal planes. The HYSPLIT central
path represents the centerline with the understanding that there are
areas on each side horizontally and vertically that also contribute to
the concentrations at the end point. The horizontal and vertical areas
that potentially contribute to concentrations at the endpoint (monitor)
grow wider from the centerline the further back in time the trajectory
goes. Therefore, a HYSPLIT centerline does not have to pass directly
over emissions sources or emission source areas, but merely relatively
near emission source areas for those areas, to contribute to
concentrations at the trajectory endpoint. The EPA relies on back
trajectory analysis as a corollary analysis along with observation-
based meteorological wind fields at multiple heights to examine the
general plausibility of the photochemical model

``linkages.'' Since the back trajectory calculations do not account for
any air pollution formation, dispersion, transformation, or removal
processes as influenced by emissions, chemistry, deposition, etc., the
trajectories cannot be used to develop quantitative contributions.
Therefore, back trajectories cannot be used to quantitatively evaluate
the magnitude of the existing photochemical contributions from upwind
states to downwind receptors. It is interesting to note that TCEQ's
analysis of the back trajectories indicates that the 2012 meteorology
used by TCEQ seemed to yield more back trajectories that reach Texas
than most years for many of the Colorado monitors. This seems to be
consistent with TCEQ identifying linkages to Colorado when the EPA's
modeling of 2016 does not.
    TCEQ performed an alternate contribution analysis for the ten
California receptors and the five Colorado receptors using all days
modeled in 2023 that had values over 70 ppb rather than focus on just
the 5-10 highest values under the EPA's technique. Particularly for
California, this meant many more days could be included in the average
which had the effect of showing a smaller estimated contribution. We
believe it is appropriate to focus on the highest values as these are
the ones that ultimately will have to be reduced for the standard to be
attained. As discussed in the EPA Region 6 TSD, the EPA's review of
TCEQ's alternate contribution method analysis for California and
Colorado receptors is that it does not provide substantial evidence
that refutes the TCEQ's photochemical modeling analysis results,
including the contribution analysis using the EPA's contribution
methodology.
    TCEQ provided an analysis of collective interstate contribution to
the 2023 DV for the five Colorado and ten California receptors. The
collective interstate contribution at tagged Colorado receptors ranges
from 9.32% to 10.27%. The collective interstate contribution at tagged
California receptors ranges from 3.2% to 4.58%. TCEQ argues that these
are small percentages (Colorado and California) and not as high as the
collective interstate contribution percentages the EPA calculated for
monitors in Eastern States, which ranged from 17% to 67%. TCEQ also
notes that a significant portion of the tagged Colorado monitors' 2023
modeled DVs is due to background emissions (sum of contributions from
to biogenic, fires, and boundary conditions). For the California
receptors TCEQ argues that these percentages are small compared to
Intra-State contribution.
    As an initial matter, the EPA is not solely relying on TCEQ's
findings of linkages to Colorado and California but is also relying on
its own findings of linkages to areas in the Midwest Region. As such,
TCEQ's analysis of relative contributions to Colorado and California
does not provide justification for not addressing downwind impacts.
Nonetheless, EPA has found in the past that certain California
receptors are so heavily impacted by local emissions, and total upwind
contribution is so low, that those receptors may not be considered to
be affected by interstate ozone transport. See 81 FR 15200 (Mar. 22,
2016). However, this is a narrow circumstance that does not apply in
the vast majority of cases and has never been applied outside of
California. EPA has previously found, for instance, that receptors in
Colorado are heavily impacted by upwind-state contribution. See 82 FR
9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81 FR 71991 (Oct. 19, 2016). EPA need not draw any
conclusions here regarding whether the California sites TCEQ identified
should or should not be considered receptors for ozone-transport
purposes. EPA affirms, contrary to TCEQ's suggestion, that the Colorado
receptors TCEQ analyzed are impacted by upwind state contributions.
However, the EPA's finding that Texas is linked to receptors in other
states is based on still other linkages found in EPA's modeling to
receptors in other states, which are clearly impacted by the collective
contribution of multiple upwind states, including Texas. Under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) downwind states are not obligated to reduce
emissions on their own to resolve nonattainment or maintenance
problems. Rather, states are obligated to eliminate their own
significant contribution or interference with the ability of other
states to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
    TCEQ also performed photochemical modeling analysis using the
Direct Decoupled Method (DDM) tool for receptors in Colorado. DDM
provides a first derivative of the changes in ozone (linear
relationship where the DDM value is the slope of the line for changes
in ozone) resulting from changes in NOX emissions from all
Texas' NOX emissions. The DDM modeling does show some
response to Texas NOX emissions but from the scale it is
hard to discern the level of response but it appears to be in the 0-2
ppb range in general with some values in the 0.2 -2 ppb range for
modeled values over 60 ppb. Since the modeling has underprediction and
underestimation issues, these values could be higher. Not surprisingly,
the DDM tool shows that monitors in Colorado are much more responsive
to intra-state reductions than reductions in Texas. That said, the
results of the DDM tool showing only a relatively small response to
reductions is not inconsistent with the finding that Texas emissions
contribute significantly to elevated readings in Colorado. As has been
discussed elsewhere, the EPA believes a contribution of 1 percent of
the standard is an appropriate threshold such that further analysis is
warranted.
    Overall, these additional analyses performed by TCEQ do not provide
sufficient evidence to refute the modeling results that TCEQ's modeling
indicates downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors in
Colorado and Southern California are impacted by Texas emissions and
Texas' contribution is 0.7 ppb or greater.\109\ In fact, the monitored
ozone design value trends provide evidence that future year modeled
ozone levels are underestimated by TCEQ's modeling and there are likely
more receptors that should have been identified with additional
potential linkages. Although Texas asserted that its additional air
quality factor analysis is a permissible way to interpret which
contributions are ``significant'' because that analysis examines
whether there was a ``persistent and consistent pattern of contribution
on several days with elevated ozone'' we find that such pattern is
already established by a modeled linkage at Step 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ TCEQ also identified a monitor in Cochise County, Arizona
(ID 40038001), but the monitor's recent DVs are below the NAAQS.
From AQS, the 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 DVs are each 65 ppb; 2016-
2018, 2017-2019, and 2018-2020 DVs are 66 ppb; and preliminary 2019-
2021 DV is 66 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA 2016v2 modeling using 2016 base year meteorology
indicates linkages from Texas to receptors in the Midwest Region but
does not indicate impacts from Texas emissions on the Colorado and
other western receptors identified by TCEQ. With a different base
period such as TCEQ's 2012 base period meteorology and the EPA's 2016
base period meteorology, it is not uncommon that the potential downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptors could change. These differing
results about receptors and linkages can be affected by the varying
meteorology from year to year and the selection of different base
years, but we do not think the differing results mean that the modeling
or the EPA methodology for identifying receptors or linkages is
inherently unreliable. Rather, these separate modeling runs indicated
(1) that there were receptors that would

struggle with nonattainment or maintenance in the future, and (2) that
Texas was linked to some set of these receptors, even if the receptors
and linkages differed from one another in their specifics (e.g., a
different set of receptors were identified to have nonattainment or
maintenance problems, or Texas was linked to different receptors in one
modeling run versus another). We think this common result indicates
that Texas's emissions were substantial enough to generate linkages at
Steps 1 and 2 to some set of downwind receptors, under varying
assumptions and meteorological conditions, even if the precise set of
linkages changed between modeling runs.
    In sum, the EPA's more recent and robust 2016 base year modeling
platform indicates that Texas is linked to several receptors in the
Midwest Region as does the EPA's earlier 2011 base year modeling.
TCEQ's 2012 base case modeling showed linkages to states in the west.
As discussed, the EPA does not find the additional weight of evidence
evaluations conducted by TCEQ provide compelling reasons to discount
the impacts indicated in Colorado and California by the TCEQ modeling.
In fact, we think TCEQ's modeling likely underestimates these issues.
We therefore propose that Texas was required to analyze emissions from
the sources and other emissions activity from within the State to
determine whether its contributions were significant, and we propose to
disapprove its submission because Texas failed to do so.
5. Evaluation of Information Provided by TCEQ Regarding Step 4
    Step 4 of the 4-Step interstate transport framework calls for
development of permanent and federally enforceable control strategies
to achieve the emissions reductions determined to be necessary at Step
3 to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS. Texas indicated that
because a number of counties in its state had been designated
nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, there could be attainment
demonstration and potential controls contemplated in association with
those nonattainment designations.\110\ However, the State's interstate
transport submission did not revise its SIP to identify any specific
emission reductions, nor did it include a revision to its SIP to ensure
any such reductions were permanent and enforceable. The other control
measures identified in TCEQ's submission are, as noted by TCEQ, already
adopted and implemented measures and do not contain an evaluation of
additional emission control opportunities (or establish that no
additional controls are required). As a result, the EPA proposes to
disapprove TCEQ's submittal on the separate, additional basis that the
Texas has not included permanent and enforceable emissions reductions
in its SIP as necessary to meet the obligations of CAA section
110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Pointing to anticipated upcoming emission reductions, even
if they were not included in the analysis at Steps 1 and 2, is not
sufficient as a Step 3 analysis, for the reasons discussed in
Section V.B.4 of this action. In this section, we explain that to
the extent such anticipated reductions are not included in the SIP
and rendered permanent and enforceable, reliance on such anticipated
reductions is also insufficient at Step 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Conclusion
    Based on the EPA's evaluation of TCEQ's SIP submission, the EPA is
proposing to find that the Texas August 17, 2018, SIP submission
pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution does not meet the
State's interstate transport obligations, because it fails to contain
the necessary provisions to eliminate emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.

VI. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to disapprove the SIP submissions from Arkansas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas pertaining to interstate transport of
air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
Under CAA section 110(c)(1), the disapprovals would establish a 2-year
deadline for the EPA to promulgate FIPs for these states to address the
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements
pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states,
unless the EPA approves SIPs that meet these requirements. Disapproval
does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, or Texas.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting
the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This proposed action disapproving the portion of Oklahoma's SIP
submission addressing the State's interstate transport obligations
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS will
apply to certain areas of Indian country as discussed in Section IV.C
of this action, and therefore, has tribal implications as specified in
E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). However, this proposed
action will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. This
proposed action will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments because no actions will be
required of tribal governments. This proposed action will

also not preempt tribal law as no Oklahoma tribe implements a
regulatory program under the CAA, and thus does not have applicable or
related tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011), the EPA will offer
consultation to tribal governments whose lands are located within the
exterior boundaries of the State of Oklahoma that may be affected by
this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a
SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

K. CAA Section 307(b)(1)

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit: (i) When the agency action
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final
actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is
locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based
on such a determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final
actions, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion whether to
invoke the exception in (ii).\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that an action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator takes into account a
number of policy considerations, including his judgment balancing
the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's authoritative
centralized review versus allowing development of the issue in other
contexts and the best use of agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA anticipates that this proposed rulemaking, if finalized,
would be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1) because it would take final action on SIP submittals for the
2015 ozone NAAQS for four states, which are located in three different
Federal judicial circuits. It would apply uniform, nationwide
analytical methods, policy judgments, and interpretation with respect
to the same CAA obligations, i.e., implementation of interstate
transport requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS for states across the country, and final action would
be based on this common core of determinations, described in further
detail below.
    If the EPA takes final action on this proposed rulemaking[, in the
alternative,] the Administrator intends to exercise the complete
discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make and publish a finding
that the final action (to the extent a court finds the action to be
locally or regionally applicable) is based on a determination of
``nationwide scope or effect'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1). Through this rulemaking action (in conjunction with a series
of related actions on other SIP submissions for the same CAA
obligations), the EPA interprets and applies section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)
of the CAA for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on a common core of
nationwide policy judgments and technical analysis concerning the
interstate transport of pollutants throughout the continental U.S. In
particular, the EPA is applying here (and in other proposed actions
related to the same obligations) the same, nationally consistent 4-Step
framework for assessing interstate transport obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The EPA relies on a single set of updated, 2016 base year
photochemical grid modeling results of the year 2023 as the primary
basis for its assessment of air quality conditions and contributions at
Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-Step framework. Further, the EPA proposes to
determine and apply a set of nationally consistent policy judgments to
apply the 4-Step framework. The EPA has selected a nationally uniform
analytic year (2023) for this analysis and is applying a nationally
uniform approach to nonattainment and maintenance receptors and a
nationally uniform approach to contribution threshold analysis.\112\
For these reasons, the Administrator intends, if this proposed action
is finalized, to exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under
the CAA to make and publish a finding that this action is based on one
or more determinations of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of
CAA section 307(b)(1).\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also
appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple judicial
circuits. In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
    \113\ The EPA may take a consolidated, single final action on
all of the proposed SIP disapproval actions with respect to
obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Should the EPA take a single final action on all such
disapprovals, this action would be nationally applicable, and the
EPA would also anticipate, in the alternative, making and publishing
a finding that such final action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-02961 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38782-38783]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13895]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042]

TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
June 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email: [email protected]. OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see https://

www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a
NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of three test standards to
the NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant
organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or
renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in
the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice,
OSHA announces the application and provides the preliminary finding. In
the second notice, the agency provides the final decision on the
application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL, including TUVRNA, which details that NRTL's scope of
recognition. These pages are available from the OSHA website at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVRNA submitted an application, dated May 3, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0042-
0057), to expand recognition to include the addition of three test
standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform
any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion
applications in the Federal Register on May 27, 2022 (87 FR 32193). The
agency requested comments by June 13, 2022, but it received no comments
in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final
notice to grant expansion of TUVRNA's scope of recognition.
    To review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVRNA's
application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042 contains all materials in
the record concerning TUVRNA's recognition. Please note: Due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public at this
time but can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, their
capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other
pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds
that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of
its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed
below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant
TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's
recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration
of conformance to the test standards shown below in Table 1.

Table 1--Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in TUVRNA's NRTL Scope
                             of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1703...........................  Flat-Rate Photovoltaic Modules and
                                     Panels.
UL 61730-1........................  Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety
                                     Qualification--Part 1: Requirements
                                     for Construction.
UL 61730-2........................  Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety
                                     Qualification--Part 2: Requirements
                                     for Testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

A. Conditions

    Recognition is contingent on continued compliance with 29 CFR
1910.7, including but not limited to, abiding by the following
conditions of recognition:
    1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply
with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of TUVRNA, subject to
the limitations and conditions specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020)
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on June 21, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-13895 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73108-73109]
[DOCID:fr29no10-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0584]

Guidance for Industry on Abbreviated New Drug Applications:
Impurities in Drug Products; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``ANDAs: Impurities in
Drug Products.'' This guidance updates recommendations regarding
degradation products and updates the draft guidance ``ANDAs: Impurities
in Drug Products'' announced in December 1998 in conformance with the
revision of the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)
guidance for industry ``Q3B(R) Impurities in New Drug Products,'' which
was announced in August 2006.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New

Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devinder Gill, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-630), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Products.'' In December 1998, FDA
issued the draft guidance ``ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Products,'' and
in August 2005, FDA revised it in conformance with the ``Q3B(R)
Impurities in New Drug Products'' guidance for industry that was
announced in August 2006.
    We are issuing the final guidance to: (1) Update information on
listing of degradation products, setting acceptance criteria, and
qualifying degradation products (thresholds and procedures) in
abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) in conformance with the
revision of the guidance for industry on Q3B(R) and (2) remove those
sections of the 1998 draft guidance containing recommendations that are
no longer needed because they are addressed in the more recent Q3B(R).
The Q3B(R) was developed by the ICH to provide guidance on impurities
in drug products for new drug applications (NDAs). However, the Agency
believes that many of the recommendations provided on impurities in
NDAs also apply to ANDAs.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on impurities in drug products submitted as
ANDAs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may
be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either  http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/
GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http:/
/www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-29896 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51457-51461]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24047]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81987; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-091]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments
No. 1 and 2, To List and Trade Shares of the Calvert Ultra-Short
Duration Income NextSharesTM Under Nasdaq Rule 5745

October 31, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On August 30, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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 to list and trade common shares (``Shares'') of
the Calvert Ultra-Short Duration Income NextSharesTM
(``Fund'') under Nasdaq Rule 5745. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 18, 2017.\3\
On September 15, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ On October 27, 2017, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received
no comments on the proposed rule change. This order grants approval of
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81591 (September 13,
2017), 82 FR 43611 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is a partial
amendment in which the Exchange clarifies that: (i) In the event
that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes newly
affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or a sub-
adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes
affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will not just implement but also
maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel and/or
such broker-dealer affiliate, if applicable; and (ii) the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), on behalf of the
Exchange, will communicate as needed with, and may obtain
information from, other markets and entities that are members of the
Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') regarding trading in the
Shares, and in exchange-traded securities and instruments held by
the Fund (to the extent those exchange-traded securities and
instruments are known through the publication of the Composition
File and periodic public disclosures of the Fund's portfolio
holdings), and the Exchange may obtain such trading information from
markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the
Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement. Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2017-091/nasdaq2017091-2447435-161078.pdf.
Because Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change does not
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise
unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 1 is not subject to
notice and comment.
    \5\ Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change is a partial
amendment in which the Exchange clarifies that the name of the Fund
will be Calvert Ultra-Short Duration Income NextShares. Amendment
No. 2 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nasdaq-2017-091/nasdaq2017091-2656932-161387.pdf. Because Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change does not materially alter the substance of the
proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues,
Amendment No. 2 is not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund
under Nasdaq Rule 5745, which governs the listing and trading of
Exchange-Traded Managed Fund Shares, as defined in Nasdaq Rule
5745(c)(1). The Fund is a series of the Calvert Management Series
(``Trust''). The Exchange represents that the Trust is registered with
the Commission as an open-end investment company and that it has filed
a registration statement on Form N-1A

(``Registration Statement'') with the Commission with respect to the
Fund.\6\ Calvert Research and Management (``Adviser''), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Eaton Vance Management, will be the Adviser to the
Fund.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Post-Effective Amendment No. 86 to the Registration
Statement on Form N-1A for CMS Trust dated July 20, 2017 (File Nos.
002-69565 and 811-03101).
    \7\ According to the Exchange, the Commission has issued an
order granting Eaton Vance Management, Eaton Vance ETMF Trust, Eaton
Vance ETMF Trust II and certain affiliates exemptive relief under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940 Act''). See Investment
Company Act Release No. 31361 (December 2, 2014) (File No. 812-
14139) (``Order''). The Exchange states that the Adviser is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Eaton Vance Management and may rely on
this exemptive order with respect to the Fund. In compliance with
Nasdaq Rule 5745(b)(5), which applies to Shares based on an
international or global portfolio, the application for the Order
states that the Fund will comply with the federal securities laws in
accepting securities for deposits and satisfying redemptions with
securities, including that the securities accepted for deposits and
the securities used to satisfy redemption requests are sold in
transactions that would be exempt from registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Foreside Fund Services, LLC will be the principal underwriter and
distributor of the Fund's Shares. State Street Bank and Trust Company
will act as the accounting agent, custodian, and transfer agent to the
Fund. ICE Data Services will be the intraday indicative value (``IIV'')
calculator to the Fund.
    The Exchange has made the following representations and statements
in describing the Fund.\8\ According to the Exchange, the Fund will be
actively managed and will pursue the principal investment strategies
described below.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Commission notes that additional information regarding
the Trust, the Fund, and the Shares, including investment
strategies, risks, creation and redemption procedures, calculation
of net asset value (``NAV''), fees, distributions, and taxes, among
other things, can be found in the Notice, Amendments No. 1 and 2,
and the Registration Statement, as applicable. See supra notes 3-6,
respectively, and accompanying text.
    \9\ According to the Exchange, additional information regarding
the Fund will be available on a free public Web site for the Fund
(www.calvert.com and/or www.nextshares.com) and in the Registration
Statement for the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Principal Investment Strategies

    The investment objective of the Fund is to seek to maximize income,
to the extent consistent with preservation of capital, through
investment in bonds and income-producing securities. The Fund will seek
to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal
circumstances, at least 80% of its net assets (including borrowings for
investment purposes) in a portfolio of floating-rate debt securities
(e.g., corporate floating-rate securities) and debt securities with
durations of less than or equal to one year. The Fund will typically
invest at least 65% of its net assets in investment grade, U.S. dollar-
denominated debt securities, as assessed at the time of purchase. The
Fund will invest principally in bonds issued by U.S. corporations, the
U.S. Government or its agencies, and U.S. Government-sponsored
enterprises such as the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The Fund may also invest up to
25% of its net assets in foreign debt securities.

B. Portfolio Disclosure and Composition File

    Consistent with the disclosure requirements that apply to
traditional open-end investment companies, a complete list of the
Fund's current portfolio positions will be made available at least once
each calendar quarter, with a reporting lag of not more than 60 days.
The Fund may provide more frequent disclosures of portfolio positions
at its discretion.
    As defined in Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(3), the ``Composition File'' is
the specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will
accept as a deposit in issuing a creation unit of Shares, and the
specified portfolio of securities and/or cash that the Fund will
deliver in a redemption of a creation unit of Shares. The Composition
File will be disseminated through the National Securities Clearing
Corporation once each business day before the open of trading in Shares
on that day and also will be made available to the public each day on a
free Web site.\10\ Because the Fund seeks to preserve the
confidentiality of its current portfolio trading program, the Fund's
Composition File generally will not be a pro rata reflection of the
Fund's investment positions. Each security included in the Composition
File will be a current holding of the Fund, but the Composition File
generally will not include all of the securities in the Fund's
portfolio or match the weightings of the included securities in the
portfolio. Securities that the Adviser is in the process of acquiring
for the Fund generally will not be represented in the Fund's
Composition File until the purchase has been completed. Similarly,
securities that are held in the Fund's portfolio but are in the process
of being sold may not be removed from its Composition File until the
sale is substantially completed. When creating and redeeming Shares in-
kind, the Fund will use cash amounts to supplement the in-kind
transactions to the extent necessary to ensure that creation units are
purchased and redeemed at NAV. The Composition File also may consist
entirely of cash, in which case it will not include any of the
securities in the Fund's portfolio.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange represents that the free public Web site
containing the Composition File will be at www.calvert.com and/or
www.nextshares.com.
    \11\ In determining whether the Fund will issue or redeem
creation units entirely on a cash basis, the key consideration will
be the benefit that would accrue to the Fund and its investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Intraday Indicative Value

    An estimated value of an individual Share, defined in Nasdaq Rule
5745(c)(2) as the IIV, will be calculated and disseminated at intervals
of not more than 15 minutes throughout the Regular Market Session \12\
when Shares trade on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a
representation from the issuer of the Shares that the IIV will be
calculated on an intraday basis and provided to Nasdaq for
dissemination via the Nasdaq Global Index Service. The IIV will be
based on current information regarding the value of the securities and
other assets held by the Fund.\13\ The purpose of the IIV is to enable
investors to estimate the next-determined NAV so they can determine the
number of Shares to buy or sell if they want to transact in an
approximate dollar amount.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Nasdaq Rule 4120(b)(4) (describing the three trading
sessions on the Exchange: (1) Pre-Market Session from 4:00 a.m. to
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (``E.T.''); (2) Regular Market Session from
9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. E.T.; and (3) Post-Market
Session from 4:00 p.m. or 4:15 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. E.T.
    \13\ The IIV disseminated throughout each trading day would be
based on the same portfolio as used to calculate that day's NAV. The
Fund will reflect purchases and sales of portfolio positions in its
NAV the next business day after trades are executed.
    \14\ In NAV-Based Trading (as referenced herein), prices of
executed trades are not determined until the reference NAV is
calculated, so buyers and sellers of Shares during the trading day
will not know the final value of their purchases and sales until the
end of the trading day. The Exchange represents that the
Registration Statement, Web site, and any advertising or marketing
materials will include prominent disclosure of this fact. The
Exchange states that although the IIV may provide useful estimates
of the value of intraday trades, they cannot be used to calculate
with precision the dollar value of the Shares to be bought or sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. NAV-Based Trading

    Because Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange, Shares
will be available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis. Shares
will be purchased and sold in the secondary market at prices directly
linked to the Fund's next-determined NAV using a trading protocol
called ``NAV-Based Trading.'' All bids, offers, and execution prices of
Shares will be expressed as a premium/discount (which may be zero) to
the

Fund's next-determined NAV (e.g., NAV-$0.01, NAV + $0.01).\15\ The
Fund's NAV will be determined each business day, normally as of 4:00
p.m. E.T. Trade executions will be binding at the time orders are
matched on Nasdaq's facilities, with the transaction prices contingent
upon the determination of NAV. Nasdaq represents that all Shares listed
on the Exchange will have a unique identifier associated with their
ticker symbol, which will indicate that the Shares are traded using
NAV-Based Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ According to the Exchange, the premium or discount to NAV
at which Share prices are quoted and transactions are executed will
vary depending on market factors, including the balance of supply
and demand for Shares among investors, transaction fees, and other
costs in connection with creating and redeeming creation units of
Shares, the cost and availability of borrowing Shares, competition
among market makers, the Share inventory positions and inventory
strategies of market makers, the profitability requirements and
business objectives of market makers, and the volume of Share
trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, member firms will utilize certain
existing order types and interfaces to transmit Share bids and offers
to Nasdaq, which will process Share trades like trades in shares of
other listed securities.\16\ In the systems used to transmit and
process transactions in Shares, the Fund's next-determined NAV will be
represented by a proxy price (e.g., 100.00) and a premium/discount of a
stated amount to the next-determined NAV to be represented by the same
increment/decrement from the proxy price used to denote NAV (e.g., NAV-
$0.01 would be represented as 99.99; NAV + $0.01 as 100.01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ According to the Exchange, all orders to buy or sell Shares
that are not executed on the day the order is submitted will be
automatically cancelled as of the close of trading on that day.
Prior to the commencement of trading in the Fund, the Exchange will
inform its members in an Information Circular of the effect of this
characteristic on existing order types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid potential investor confusion, Nasdaq represents that it
will work with member firms and providers of market data services to
seek to ensure that representations of intraday bids, offers, and
execution prices of Shares that are made available to the investing
public follow the ``NAV-$0.01/NAV + $0.01'' (or similar) display
format. Specifically, the Exchange will use the NASDAQ Basic and NASDAQ
Last Sale data feeds to disseminate intraday price and quote data for
Shares in real time in the ``NAV-$0.01/NAV + $0.01'' (or similar)
display format. Member firms may use the NASDAQ Basic and NASDAQ Last
Sale data feeds to source intraday Share prices for presentation to the
investing public in the ``NAV-$0.01/NAV + $0.01'' (or similar) display
format.
    Alternatively, member firms may source intraday Share prices in
proxy price format from the Consolidated Tape and other Nasdaq data
feeds (e.g., Nasdaq TotalView and Nasdaq Level 2) and use a simple
algorithm to convert prices into the ``NAV-$0.01/NAV + $0.01'' (or
similar) display format. Prior to the commencement of trading in the
Fund, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular
of the identities of the specific Nasdaq data feeds from which intraday
Share prices in proxy price format may be obtained.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal to list and trade the Shares is consistent with the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\17\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5745, which sets forth
the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Exchange-
Traded Managed Fund Shares. A minimum of 50,000 Shares and no less than
two creation units of the Fund will be outstanding at the commencement
of trading on the Exchange.
    Nasdaq deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering
trading in the Shares subject to Nasdaq's existing rules governing the
trading of equity securities. Every order to trade Shares of the Fund
is subject to the proxy price protection threshold of plus/minus $1.00,
which determines the lower and upper thresholds for the life of the
order and provides that the order will be cancelled at any point if it
exceeds $101.00 or falls below $99.00.\19\ With certain exceptions,
each order also must contain the applicable order attributes, including
routing instructions and time-in-force information, as described in
Nasdaq Rule 4703.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Nasdaq Rule 5745(h).
    \20\ See Nasdaq Rule 5745(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also represents that trading in the Shares will be subject
to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both Nasdaq and
FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect
violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities
laws.\21\ The Exchange represents that these surveillance procedures
are adequate to properly monitor trading of Shares on the Exchange and
to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal
securities laws. FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as
needed with, and may obtain information from, other markets and
entities that are members of the ISG regarding trading in the Shares
and in exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund (to
the extent those exchange-traded securities and instruments are known
through the publication of the Composition File and periodic public
disclosures of the Fund's portfolio holdings). In addition, the
Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, and in
exchange-traded securities and instruments held by the Fund (to the
extent those exchange-traded securities and instruments are known
through the publication of the Composition File and periodic public
disclosures of the Fund's portfolio holdings), from markets and other
entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in
place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA,
on behalf of the Exchange, will be able to access, as needed, trade
information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund
reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange states that FINRA provides surveillance of
trading on the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement
and that the Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under
this regulatory services agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the commencement of trading in the Fund, the Exchange will
inform its members in an Information Circular of the special
characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a)
The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in creation
units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq
Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members
with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers;
(c) how information regarding the IIV and Composition File is
disseminated; (d) the requirement that members deliver a

prospectus to investors purchasing Shares prior to or concurrently with
the confirmation of a transaction; and (e) information regarding NAV-
Based Trading protocols.
    The Information Circular also will identify the specific Nasdaq
data feeds from which intraday Share prices in proxy price format may
be obtained. As noted above, all orders to buy or sell Shares that are
not executed on the day the order is submitted will be automatically
cancelled as of the close of trading on that day, and the Information
Circular will discuss the effect of this characteristic on existing
order types. In addition, Nasdaq intends to provide its members with a
detailed explanation of NAV-Based Trading through a Trading Alert
issued prior to the commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange.
    Nasdaq states that the Adviser is not a registered broker-dealer;
however, it is affiliated with a broker-dealer and has implemented and
will maintain a fire wall with respect to its affiliated broker-dealer
regarding access to information concerning the composition of, and/or
changes to, the Fund's portfolio.\22\ In addition, personnel who make
decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to
procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material,
non-public information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. The
Reporting Authority \23\ will implement and maintain, or ensure that
the Composition File will be subject to, procedures designed to prevent
the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding
the Fund's portfolio positions and changes in the positions. In the
event that (a) the Adviser registers as a broker-dealer or becomes
newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-
adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated
with a broker-dealer, it will implement and maintain a fire wall with
respect to its relevant personnel and/or such broker-dealer affiliate,
as the case may be, regarding access to information concerning the
composition of, and/or changes to, the Fund's portfolio, and will be
subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material non-public information regarding the portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 4. The Exchange further
represents that an investment adviser to an open-end fund is
required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(``Advisers Act''). As a result, the Adviser and its related
personnel are subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the
Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires
investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the
fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well as
compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly,
procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-
public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with
Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under
the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to
provide investment advice to clients unless such investment adviser
has: (i) Adopted and implemented written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent violation, by the investment adviser
and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission
rules adopted thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual
review regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures
established pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness
of their implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is
a supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and
procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.
    \23\ See Nasdaq Rule 5745(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade the Shares
on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the
Act,\24\ which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public
interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to
brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to
quotations for, and transactions in, securities. Information regarding
NAV-based trading prices, best bids and offers for Shares, and volume
of Shares traded will be continuously available on a real-time basis
throughout each trading day on brokers' computer screens and other
electronic services. All bids and offers for Shares and all Share trade
executions will be reported intraday in real time by the Exchange to
the Consolidated Tape \25\ and separately disseminated to member firms
and market data services through the Exchange data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    \25\ Due to systems limitations, the Consolidated Tape will
report intraday execution prices and quotes for Shares using a proxy
price format. Nasdaq has represented that it will separately report
real-time execution prices and quotes to member firms and providers
of market data services in the ``NAV-$0.01/NAV + $0.01'' (or
similar) display format, and will otherwise seek to ensure that
representations of intraday bids, offers and execution prices for
Shares that are made available to the investing public follow the
same display format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that once a Fund's daily NAV has been
calculated and disseminated, Nasdaq will price each Share trade entered
into during the day at the Fund's NAV plus/minus the trade's executed
premium/discount. Using the final trade price, each executed Share
trade will then be disseminated to member firms and market data
services via a File Transfer Protocol (``FTP'') file \26\ that will be
created for exchange-traded managed funds and will be confirmed to the
member firms participating in the trade to supplement the previously
provided information with final pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ According to Nasdaq, FTP is a standard network protocol
used to transfer computer files on the Internet. Nasdaq will arrange
for the daily dissemination of an FTP file with executed Share
trades to member firms and market data services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the
Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily (on each
business day that the New York Stock Exchange is open for trading) and
provided to Nasdaq via the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (``MFQS'') by
the fund accounting agent. As soon as the NAV is entered into the MFQS,
Nasdaq will disseminate the NAV to market participants and market data
vendors via the Mutual Fund Dissemination Service so that all firms
will receive the NAV per share at the same time.
    The Exchange further represents that it may consider all relevant
factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the
Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the
conditions specified in Nasdaq Rule 4120 and in Nasdaq Rule
5745(d)(2)(C). Additionally, the Exchange may cease trading the Shares
if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist that, in the opinion
of the Exchange, make further dealings on the Exchange detrimental to
the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. To manage the risk of a
non-regulatory Share trading halt, Nasdaq has in place back-up
processes and procedures to ensure orderly trading. Prior to the
commencement of market trading in the Shares, the Fund will be required
to establish and maintain a public Web site through which its current
prospectus may be downloaded.\27\ The Web site will include additional
information concerning the Fund updated on a daily basis, including the
prior business day's NAV, and the following trading information for
that business day expressed as premiums/discounts to NAV: (a) Intraday
high, low, average, and closing prices of Shares in Exchange trading;
(b) the midpoint of the highest bid and lowest offer prices as of the
close of Exchange trading, expressed as a premium/discount to NAV
(``Closing Bid/Ask Midpoint''); and (c) the spread between highest bid
and lowest offer prices as of the close of Exchange trading (``Closing
Bid/Ask Spread.''). The Web site will also contain charts showing the
frequency distribution and range of values of

trading prices, Closing Bid/Ask Midpoints, and Closing Bid/Ask Spreads
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange represents that the Web site containing this
information will be www.calvert.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that all statements and representations
made in the filing regarding: (a) The description of the portfolio or
reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference
assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or
IIV, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall
constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the
Exchange. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will
advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the
continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance
with the continued listing requirements.\28\ If the Fund is not in
compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will
commence delisting procedures for the Fund under the Nasdaq 5800
Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Commission notes that certain other proposals for the
listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares include a representation
that the exchange will ``surveil'' for compliance with the continued
listing requirements. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No.
78005 (Jun. 7, 2016), 81 FR 38247 (Jun. 13, 2016) (SR-BATS-2015-
100). In the context of this representation, it is the Commission's
view that ``monitor'' and ``surveil'' both mean ongoing oversight of
a fund's compliance with the continued listing requirements.
Therefore, the Commission does not view ``monitor'' as a more or
less stringent obligation than ``surveil'' with respect to the
continued listing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's
representations, including those set forth above, in the Notice, and
Amendments No. 1 and 2,\29\ and the Exchange's description of the Fund.
In particular, the Commission notes that, although the Shares will be
available for purchase and sale on an intraday basis, the Shares will
be purchased and sold at prices directly linked to the Fund's next-
determined NAV. Further, the Commission notes that the Fund and the
Shares must comply with the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5745 and the
conditions set forth in this proposed rule change to be listed and
traded on the Exchange on an initial and continuing basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See supra notes 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) \30\ and Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii)of the Act,\31\ and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\32\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2017-091), as
modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24047 Filed 11-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48697]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18701]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8924-01-R2]

Proposed CERCLA Cost Recovery Settlement for the Apple Valley
Shopping Center Superfund Site, Town of LaGrange, Dutchess County, New
York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''),
notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 2, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement
(Agreement) pursuant to CERCLA, with Apple Valley Corp. and the Estate
of James A. Klein (Settling Parties) for the Apple Valley Shopping
Center Superfund Site (Site), LaGrange, Dutchess County, New York.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments can be sent via email to Sharon Kivowitz at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments should reference the Apple Valley
Shopping Center Superfund Site Settlement Agreement for Recovery of
Response Costs, Index No. CERCLA-02-2021-2025. The proposed settlement
is available for public inspection at this weblink: https://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/02/625084.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Kivowitz, Attorney, Office of
Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Agreement, the Settling Parties
will pay $75,000 to the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund in
reimbursement of EPA's Past Response Costs paid at or in connection
with the Site. The Agreement includes a covenant by EPA not to sue or
to take administrative action against the Settling Parties pursuant to
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), to recover such Past
Response Costs. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the
Agreement. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or
withdraw its consent to the Agreement if comments received disclose
facts or considerations that indicate that the proposed Agreement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.

Pasquale Evangelista,
Director, Superfund & Emergency Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2021-18701 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P