[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 3735]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8866-013]

Black Canyon Bliss, LLC; Notice of Waiver Period for Water
Quality Certification Application

    On January 11, 2023, Black Canyon Bliss, LLC submitted to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) evidence of the date
on which the certifying agency received the certification request for a
Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed
with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, in conjunction with
the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section
4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: May 24, 2022.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One
year (May 24, 2023).

    If the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality fails or refuses
to act on the water quality certification request on or before the
above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: January 13, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01064 Filed 1-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14631-14636]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6252]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04OAR-2010-0722-201108; FRL-9282-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), as demonstrating that Mississippi meets
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. Mississippi certified that
the Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi
(hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). Mississippi's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 7, 2007,
addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0722, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0722,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0722. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the
elements of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure''
provisions?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000.
However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
created uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not
provide the required ``infrastructure'' SIP submission for these newly
promulgated NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA,
among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing
EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether
each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007.
Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this
Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to
make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008.
In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings
for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as
of January 7, 2008.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans;
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,'' making a finding that each state had submitted or
failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those states that did receive
findings, the findings of failure to submit for all or a portion of a
state's implementation plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan to address the outstanding SIP
elements unless, prior to that time, the affected states submit, and
EPA approves, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k).
Mississippi's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December
7, 2007, and was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008.
Mississippi was among other states that did not receive a finding of
failure to submit because it provided a complete submission to EPA to
address the infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
March 1, 2008. Today's action is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure submission for which EPA made the completeness
determination on March 27, 2008. This action is not approving any
specific rule, but rather proposing that Mississippi's already approved
SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission 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 affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
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 above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and

emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's October 2, 2007,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by
Mississippi consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On
December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final
action to approve Mississippi's SIP revision, which was submitted to
comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 56268 (October 3, 2007). In so doing,
Mississippi's CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport
provisions in Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has since proposed a
new rule to address the interstate transport of NOX and
SOX in the eastern United States. See 75 FR 45210 (Aug.
2, 2010) (``the Transport Rule''). However, because this rule has
yet to be finalized, EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the elements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    Mississippi's infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Mississippi's infrastructure submission provides an overview of the
provisions of the Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulations
relevant to air quality control. The regulations described below have
been federally approved in the Mississippi SIP and include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures. Regulation APC-S-1--
Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of
Air Contaminants and Regulation APC-S-3--Regulations for the Prevention
of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes generally authorizes DEQ to adopt
rules for the control of air pollution, including those necessary to
obtain EPA approval under section 110 of the CAA. The most recent
federally approved revision in this regulation was on October 3, 2007
(72 FR 56268). EPA has made the preliminary determination that the
provisions contained in this chapter and Mississippi's practices are
adequate to protect the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility.
EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency plans to address
such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages
any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it
as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Mississippi's infrastructure submission provides information Regulation
APC-S-1--Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and
Control of Air Contaminants, with regard to the monitoring program
within the State. The most recent federally approved revision in this
section was on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56268). Annually, EPA approves
the ambient air monitoring network plan for the state agencies. On July
8, 2010, Mississippi submitted its plan to EPA. On December 14, 2010,
EPA approved Mississippi's monitoring network plan. Mississippi's
approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0722. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system
related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: In Regulation APC-S-1--Air
Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air
Contaminants of Mississippi's SIP, a description of Mississippi's
statutory authority to enforce regulations relating to attainment and
maintenance of air quality is included. Additionally, Mississippi
submitted a SIP revision on November 28, 2007, which addresses the
Ozone Implementation New Source Review (NSR) Update requirements to
include nitrogen oxides (NOX) as an ozone precursor for
permitting purposes for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
and nonattainment NSR. Specifically, the Ozone Implementation NSR
Update requirements included changes to major source thresholds for
sources in certain classes of nonattainment areas, changes to offset
ratios for marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas, provisions addressing offset requirements for
facilities that shut down or curtail operation, and a requirement
stating that NOX emissions are ozone precursors. EPA
published a final action approving Mississippi's revisions which
incorporate NOX as an ozone precursor on December 20, 2010
(75 FR 79300).

    In Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration for Air Quality, Mississippi incorporates by
reference the regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 15, 2007,
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1)(iii)(t). These incorporated
provisions include amendments to major source thresholds for sources in
certain classes of nonattainment areas, changes to offset ratios for
marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment
areas, provisions addressing offset requirements for facilities that
shut down or curtail operation, and a requirement stating that
NOX emissions are ozone precursors.
    EPA published a final action revising Mississippi's greenhouse gas
(GHG) regulations on December 29, 2010 (75 FR 81858). The revisions
incorporate by reference the Tailoring Rule provisions at 40 CFR 52.21
(as amended June 3, 2010, and effective August 2, 2010), into the
Mississippi SIP (APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Air Quality) to address the thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability. Additionally, they also incorporate
administrative changes related to Mississippi's pre-existing exclusion
of certain provisions of the federal PSD regulations from its SIP,
specifically, provisions pertaining to the ``reasonable possibility''
standard, ``clean units,'' and ``pollution control projects.'' EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
are adequate for program enforcement of control measures including
review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's
regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: In Regulation APC-S-2--Permit Regulations for the
Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, Mississippi
outlines how it will notify neighboring states of potential impacts
from new or modified sources. The most recent federally approved
revision in this regulation was on July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38773).
Mississippi does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and
126. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable
requirements relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the state's existing minor NSR
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's
regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: DEQ is responsible for adopting
air quality rules, revising SIPs, developing and tracking the budget,
establishing the title V fees, and other planning needs. Annually,
states update grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air
quality planning, and applicable requirements related NAAQS, including
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On April 8, 2010, EPA submitted a letter
to Mississippi outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of
those commitments for fiscal year 2009. The letter EPA submitted to
Mississippi can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket
ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0722. There were no outstanding issues,
therefore Mississippi's grants were finalized and closed out. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Mississippi has adequate
resources for implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Mississippi's
infrastructure submission describes how to establish requirements for
compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for
emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the
State. Mississippi uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. This is
outlined in Regulation APC-S-2--Permit Regulations for the Construction
and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment of the Mississippi air
pollution control regulations.
    Additionally, the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is EPA's
central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile
organic compounds. Many

states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Mississippi made its latest update to the NEI on November 1, 2010. EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the
stationary source monitoring systems related to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Mississippi's infrastructure
submission provides an overview of the Mississippi Air Pollution
Control Regulations, specifically Regulation APC-S-3--Regulations for
the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes. The regulations
contained in this section have been adopted to prevent the excessive
build-up of air pollutants during air pollution episodes and to prevent
the occurrence of an emergency due to the effects of pollutants on
human health. All offices of local, county, and state governments,
including authorities, joint meetings, and any other public body are
notified as appropriate in this regulation. The episode criteria
specified for ozone are based on a 1-hour average ozone level at a
monitoring site. These criteria have previously been approved by EPA.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that these criteria are
adequate to address ozone emergency episodes for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and thus, that Mississippi's SIP and practices appear adequate
for emergency powers related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, DEQ
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. DEQ is responsible for the
adoption, modification, repeal, promulgation of air quality rules in
Mississippi. They are also responsible for the enforcement and
implementation of regulations in Mississippi. Mississippi has the
ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has
provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of
the NAAQS. Specific to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, Mississippi has
provided the following submissions:
     August 8, 2005, SIP Revision (EPA approval, see 71 FR
38773, July 10, 2006) Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New
Source Review;
     November 28, 2007, SIP Revision (EPA approval, see 75 FR
79300, October 7, 2010)--110(a)(2)(D)(i) Plan (NOX as a
precursor);
     December 7, 2007, SIP revision 1997 Infrastructure
110(a)(2)--Ozone.
    Mississippi has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to
provide future SIP revisions related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Mississippi Code Annotated Regulation 49-17-3 provides for
cooperation with other agencies of the State, agencies of other states,
and the federal government for the prevention, abatement and control of
new or existing air pollution. Additionally, DEQ submitted a regional
haze plan which outlines its consultation practices with Federal Land
Managers. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government
officials related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification:
DEQ's emergency episode provisions, discussed above in 110(a)(2)(G),
provide for notification to the public when the NAAQS, including the
ozone NAAQS, are exceeded. Additionally, during the ozone season, DEQ
reports daily air quality information on its Web site at: http://opc.deq.state.ms.us/aqi/specifically for the Jackson Metropolitan Area,
DeSoto County, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public
notification related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and visibility protection: Mississippi
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of
ozone precursors, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
NOX, to assist in the protection of air quality in
Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Air Quality.
    In Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration for Air Quality, Mississippi incorporates by
reference the regulations found at 40 CFR 52.21 as of June 15, 2007,
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1)(iii)(t). These provisions
included amendments to major source thresholds for sources in certain
classes of nonattainment areas, changes to offset ratios for marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas,
provisions addressing offset requirements for facilities that shut down
or curtail operation, and a requirement stating that NOX
emissions are ozone precursors.
    Mississippi submitted a SIP revision on November 28, 2007, which
addresses the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements to include
NOX as an ozone precursor for permitting purposes.
Specifically, the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements included
changes to major source thresholds for sources in certain classes of
nonattainment areas, changes to offset ratios for marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, provisions
addressing offset requirements for facilities that shut down or curtail
operation, and a requirement stating that NOX emissions are
ozone precursors. Specifically, this SIP revision incorporates changes
to Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Air Quality. EPA published a final action approving
Mississippi's rulemaking to incorporate changes to this regulation in
the Mississippi SIP on December 20, 2010 (See 75 FR 79300).
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Mississippi has submitted a SIP revision for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A, and the regional haze and best
available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. This
SIP revision is currently under review and will be acted on in a
separate action. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to implement PSD programs and to provide for visibility
protection related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.

    12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: DEQ has authority
pursuant to 40 CFR part 51.21 to conduct air quality modeling and
report the results of such modeling to EPA, as incorporated by
reference in the Mississippi Air Pollution Control Regulations at
Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration for Air Quality. Additionally, Mississippi supports a
regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories
and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. This regulation
demonstrates that Mississippi has the authority to provide relevant
data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of
the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the DEQ's
ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of
the associated data, related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.
    13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: Mississippi addresses the review
of construction permits as previously discussed in 110(a)(2)(C) above.
Permitting fees are collected through the State's title V fees program,
which has been federally approved. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately provide
for permitting fees related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.
    14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: DEQ coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP.
Specifically, as outlined in Section IV of Regulation APC-S-2, Public
Participation and Public Availability of Information, Mississippi
requires that State and local air pollution control agencies be
notified of modifications to stationary sources or the construction of
new sources within their region of jurisdiction. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation and participation by affected local
political subdivisions related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, Mississippi has addressed the elements of the
CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2,
2007, guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. EPA is proposing
to approve Mississippi's infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS because this submission is consistent with section 110 of
the CAA.EPA is proposing today's action to satisfy the Agency's
statutory obligations under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the
state submitted plans described herein.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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 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
Mississippi, 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2011-6252 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60255-60258]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18777]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98225; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2023-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule To Delay
Implementation of Pending Amendments to Equity 4, Rules 4120, 4702 and
4703 and To Make Further Amendments to Rules 4702 and 4703

August 25, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 16, 2023, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delay implementation of pending amendments
to Equity 4, Rules 4120, 4702 and 4703 \3\ as well as to make further
amendments to Rules 4702 and 4703, as described further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References herein to Nasdaq Rules in the 4000 Series shall
mean Rules in Nasdaq Equity 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal

office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is in the process of introducing a new upgraded
version of the OUCH Order entry protocol \4\ that will, when fully
implemented, enable the Exchange to make functional improvements to
specific Order Types \5\ and Order Attributes.\6\ The Exchange filed
its initial proposal (the ``Proposal'') for these enhancements with the
SEC on September 14, 2022, and in the Proposal the Exchange stated that
its operative date would be November 14, 2022.\7\ The Exchange
subsequently informed the Commission that it intended to delay
implementation of the migration due to ongoing development work.\8\ The
Exchange now wishes to inform participants that while it has commenced
and systematically affected migration on a feature-by-feature basis, as
described in a series of Equity Trader Alerts,\9\ the migration will
not be complete until Q1 2024--again, due to ongoing development work.
Until the migration is complete, the Exchange will continue to announce
the implementation dates for the remaining new OUCH functionalities, in
Equity Trader Alerts at least 30 days prior to implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OUCH Order entry protocol is a proprietary protocol that
allows subscribers to quickly enter orders into the System and
receive executions. OUCH accepts limit Orders from members, and if
there are matching Orders, they will execute. Non-matching Orders
are added to the Limit Order Book, a database of available limit
Orders, where they are matched in price-time priority. OUCH only
provides a method for members to send Orders and receive status
updates on those Orders. See https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=OUCH.
    \5\ An ``Order Type'' is a standardized set of instructions
associated with an Order that define how it will behave with respect
to pricing, execution, and/or posting to the Exchange Book when
submitted to Nasdaq. See Equity 1, Section 1(a)(7).
    \6\ An ``Order Attribute'' is a further set of variable
instructions that may be associated with an Order to further define
how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Exchange Book when submitted to the Exchange. See id.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-95768 (September
14, 2022); 87 FR 57534 (September 20, 2022) (SR-Nasdaq-2022-051).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-96341 (November
17, 2022), 87 FR 71712 (November 22, 2022) (SR-Nasdaq-2022-065).
    \9\ See Equity Trader Alert 2023-35 (August 2, 2023) (announcing
implementation of Midpoint Peg Order functionality), available at
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2023-35; Equity
Trader Alert 2023-28 (June 22, 2023) (announcing implementation of
Market Peg functionality), available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2023-28; Equity Trader Alert 2023-20 (May 9,
2023) (announcing implementation of Primary Peg order
functionality), available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2023-20; Equity Trader Alert 2023-17 (April
27, 2023) (announcing implementation of Reserve Order
functionality), available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=ETA2023-17; Equity Trader Alert 2023-6 (January
31, 2023) (announcing implementation of Trade Now functionality);
Equity Trader Alert 2022-96 (October 26, 2022) (announcing
implementation delay until Q2/Q3 2023), available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/TraderNews.aspx?id=%20ETA2022-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange also proposes amendments to its Rules to
address inconsistencies between the Rule Text and observed System
behavior as well as behavior unaccounted for in the existing and
pending Rule text, as follows.
First Rule Change
    The first proposed rule change addresses an edge case of
inconsistency between the Rule text and System behavior, this time
regarding Market Maker Peg Orders.\10\ Rule 4702(b)(7)(A) states that,
if after entry of a Market Maker Peg Order that has a displayed price
based on the NBBO, and the NBBO subsequently shifts such that the
displayed price of the Market Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is equal to
or greater (less) than the National Best Bid (or National Best Offer),
the Market Maker Peg Order will not be subsequently repriced until a
new reference price is established that is more aggressive than the
displayed price of the Market Maker Peg Order. System testing revealed
that the System does not reprice Market Maker Peg Orders in this
scenario, but only if such Orders are in round lot sizes, whereas it
does reprice such Orders when they are in odd lot sizes. After
evaluation, the Exchange determined to maintain this System behavior
and amend the Rule to conform to it. The Exchange proposes to do so
because the existing language proscribing repricing only makes sense
within the context of round lot Market Maker Peg Orders, which this
scenario would set a new NBBO and when they do so, cannot reprice with
respect to the reference price they just set. By contrast, odd lot
Market Maker Peg Orders are ineligible to set the NBBO, and do not have
this same problem. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
4702(b)(7)(A) to clarify that the prohibition against repricing only
applies to Market Maker Peg Orders in odd lot sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Pursuant to Rule 4702(b)(7)(A), a ``Market Maker Peg
Order'' is an Order Type designed to allow a Market Maker to
maintain a continuous two-sided quotation at a displayed price that
is compliant with the quotation requirements for Market Makers set
forth in Equity 2, Section 5(a)(2). The displayed price of the
Market Maker Peg Order is set with reference to a ``Reference
Price'' in order to keep the displayed price of the Market Maker Peg
Order within a bounded price range. The Reference Price for a Market
Maker Peg Order to buy (sell) is the then-current National Best Bid
(National Best Offer) (including Nasdaq), or if no such National
Best Bid or National Best Offer, the most recent reported last-sale
eligible trade from the responsible single plan processor for that
day, or if none, the previous closing price of the security as
adjusted to reflect any corporate actions (e.g., dividends or stock
splits) in the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Rule Change
    The second proposed amendment addresses how the System prices a
Market on Open Order \11\ with the Market Pegging Attribute \12\ and an
offset assigned to it that a participant enters after the Nasdaq
Opening Cross occurs. Rule 4702(b)(8)(B) currently provides as follows
with respect to this scenario:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Rule 4702(b)(8) (defining a ``Market on Open Order'' or
``MOO'' as follows: ``an Order Type entered without a price that may
be executed only during the Nasdaq Opening Cross. Subject to the
qualifications provided below, MOO Orders may be entered between 4
a.m. ET and immediately prior to 9:28 a.m. ET. An MOO Order may be
cancelled or modified until immediately prior to 9:25 a.m. ET. An
MOO Order shall execute only at the price determined by the Nasdaq
Opening Cross.'').
    \12\ See Rule 4703(d)(8) (defining ``market pegging'' as pegging
``with reference to the Inside Quotation on the opposite side of the
market.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An MOO Order entered through RASH or FIX with a Time-in-Force of
IOC and flagged to participate in the Nasdaq Opening Cross that is
entered after the time of the Nasdaq Opening Cross will be accepted but
will be converted into a Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of
IOC and a price established using the Market Pegging Order Attribute
with no offset.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A Time-in-Force or ``TIF'' is a period of time that the
Exchange will hold an Order for potential execution. See Rule
4703(a). An Order with a TIF of Immediate-or-Cancel or ``IOC'' is
designated to deactivate immediately after determining whether it is
marketable. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In testing System behavior, the Exchange observed that the System
does not, in fact, operate in this manner Instead, the System
determines the price

of the Order in this scenario using the offset. In evaluating whether
to modify System behavior to match the Rule, the Exchange determined to
retain the current System behavior because it did not see any
reasonable basis to ignore the offset in this scenario. The Exchange
proposes to amend the Rule accordingly.
Third Rule Change
    The third proposed rule change regards an Order with the Pegging
Attribute that a participant: (1) enters before the Nasdaq Closing
Cross occurs at 4:00 p.m.; and (2) assigns a TIF which designates the
Order for extended hours trading if it remains unexecuted after the
Cross concludes (while bypassing the Extended Trading Close). Under the
Rule, as amended by SR-Nasdaq-2022-051, such an Order would be booked
into the System, but if it remains unexecuted after the Nasdaq Closing
Cross concludes, the Order would remain booked and commence extended
hours trading, but the System would deactivate its Pegging Attribute
when doing so. In other words, the Order would cease managing the
pegged price of the Order after 4 p.m. This practice is consistent with
Equity 4, Rule 4703(d), which states that ``Pegging is available only
during Market Hours.''
    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 4703(d) to state that if a
participant enters a Peg Managed Order \14\ prior to the Nasdaq Closing
Cross with a TIF that allows for extend hours trading (other than in
the Extended Trading Close), the System will cancel that Order if
unexecuted after the Nasdaq Closing Cross concludes. By contrast, if a
participant enters a Fixed Midpoint Order \15\ in the same scenario,
the System will act as it does now--it will deactivate the Pegging
Attribute for the Order once extend hours trading commences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A ``Peg Managed Order'' is a Primary Pegged, Market Pegged,
or Managed Midpoint Order. See 4703(d) (as amended by SR-Nasdaq-
2022-051). A ``Managed Midpoint Order,'' in turn, is a Midpoint
Pegging Order which the System may update in response to changes to
the Midpoint. See id.
    \15\ A ``Fixed Midpoint Order'' is a Midpoint Pegging Order
which the System will cancel in response to changes to the Midpoint.
See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In time, the proposed treatment of Peg Managed Orders during
extended hours trading is that which the Exchange intends to apply to
all Midpoint Pegging Orders. However, this functionality is not yet
ready to make it available for Fixed Midpoint Orders. Thus, in the
interim, existing practice will continue.
Fourth Rule Change
    The fourth proposal would amend Equity 4, Rule 4703(h), to correct
its description of behavior of the Non-Displayed portion of Orders with
the Reserve Attribute.\16\ As amended by SR-Nasdaq-2022-051, Rule
4703(h) provides as follows, in pertinent part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Reserve Size'' is, in part, an Order Attribute that
``permits a Participant to stipulate that an Order Type that is
displayed may have its displayed size replenished from additional
non-displayed size.'' Rule 4703(h). The Rule also states that
Reserve ``is not available for Orders that are not displayed;
provided, however, that if a Participant enters Reserve Size for a
Non-Displayed Order with a Time-in-Force of IOC, the full size of
the Order, including Reserve Size, will be processed as a Non-
Displayed Order.'' Id. In addition to the change proposed above, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate from the immediately preceding
language ``with a Time-in-Force of IOC'' because the Exchange does
not assess a reason to include this qualifier. The statement that a
Non-Displayed Order with Reserve will be entirely non-displayed is
true even as to Non-Displayed Orders with other TIFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In all cases, if the remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order is
less than the fixed or random amount stipulated by the Participant, the
full remaining size of the Non-Displayed Order will be displayed and
the Non-Displayed Order will be removed.
    As stated, this Rule requires that the entire Non-Displayed portion
of a Reserve Order will become Displayed the moment the size of the
Non-Displayed portion \17\ drops below an amount that a participant
designates or has directed the System to randomly designate (the ``Max
Floor''). In conducting a test of System behavior, however, the
Exchange observed that the System does not, in fact, operate in this
manner. Instead, the System maintains the Non-Displayed portion of a
Reserve Order as such when the size of that Non-Displayed Portion drops
below the Max Floor. Rather than correct the current System behavior to
match the Rule, the Exchange determined that users of Reserve Orders
prefer the current System behavior because it is true to the underlying
intent of Reserve functionality, which is to help limit the price
impacts of trading large quantities of shares by displaying only small
portions of such shares at a given time, while hiding the rest in
reserve. Thus, the Exchange proposes to address the inconsistency
between the Rule text and the behavior of the System by deleting the
aforementioned language from Rule 4703(d) [sic]. Going forward, the
System will not convert to a Displayed Order the Non-Displayed
remainder of a Reserve Order that falls below the Max Floor, and the
System will not remove it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Whenever a participant enters an Order with Reserve Size,
the full size of the Order will be presented for potential execution
in compliance with Regulation NMS; thereafter, unexecuted portions
of the Order will be processed as two Orders: a Displayed Order
(with the characteristics of its selected Order Type) and a Non-
Displayed Order. See id. When an Order with Reserve Size is posted,
if there is an execution against the Displayed Order that causes its
size to decrease below a normal unit of trading, another Displayed
Order will be entered at the limit price and size stipulated by the
Participant while the size of the Non-Displayed Order will be
reduced by the same amount. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\18\ in general, and further the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ in particular, in that they are
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is consistent with the Act and in the best interests of
investors and the public to announce a delay in its completion of
implementing the amendments to the Exchange's Rulebook set forth in SR-
Nasdaq-2022-051. Doing so will avoid confusion as to which rules and
functionality will apply during the interim period. As noted earlier,
the Exchange has and will continue to notify market participants
through Equity Trader Alerts in advance of implementing any new
functionality set forth in SR-Nasdaq-2022-051.
    It is also consistent with the Act to amend the Exchange's Rules to
address inconsistencies between the Rule text and observed System
behavior, including by adapting the Rule text to codify observed System
behavior, where the observed behavior is more consistent with the
underlying purpose of an Order Attribute than is the Rule text
(maintaining the Non-Displayed status of a reserve portion of a Reserve
Order that drops below the Max Floor), where the Exchange discerns no
logical reason to maintain the existing Rule text (ignoring an offset
assigned to MOOs with Market Pegging entered after the Nasdaq Opening
Cross occurs), and where System behavior reflects a nuance not
contemplated by the existing Rules (clarifying that the prohibition
against repricing Market Maker Peg Orders that have prices equal to or
better than the NBBO only applies to round lot Market Maker Peg Orders,
and not to odd lots).
    Likewise, it is consistent with the Act to amend the Exchange's
Rules to provide for the System to cancel Managed Peg Orders designated
for extended hours trading, when such Orders remain unexecuted in the

Nasdaq Closing Cross, due to the fact that the Rule text provides that
pegging is only available during market hours. It is also consistent
with the Act to maintain its existing practice for Fixed Midpoint
Orders, in the same scenario, of deactivating the Pegging Attribute
during extended hours trading. Although the proposal will create
disparate treatment of Managed Peg Orders and Fixed Midpoint Orders,
the Exchange intends to eliminate this disparity over time by providing
for Fixed Midpoint Orders to behave in the same way as Managed Peg
Orders. Until that occurs, maintaining existing practice for Fixed
Midpoint Orders is consistent with the Rule.
    Finally, it is consistent with the Act to amend Rule 4703(h) to
delete qualifying language which erroneously suggests that Non-
Displayed Orders with Reserve are only non-displayed when such Orders
have a TIF of IOC. Investors and the public have an interest in the
Exchange maintaining a Rulebook that is accurate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposals merely delay
completion of its implementation of SR-Nasdaq-2022-051 as well as
address inconsistencies between Rule text and System behavior that
became apparent during the course of this implementation. The Exchange
neither intends nor perceives that these rule changes will have any
impact on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\21\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-030 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-030. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NASDAQ-2023-030 and should
be submitted on or before September 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18777 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 55888-55889]
[DOCID:fr26se08-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58598; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Waive Annual Fees for Securities Transferring
to NYSE Arca From NYSE Alternext US

September 19, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On July 23, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' 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
waive annual listing fees for securities transferring to NYSE Arca from
NYSE Alternext US after the closing of the purchase of the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'') by NYSE Euronext (the ``Merger'').\3\ The
proposed rule change was published in the Federal Register on August
11, 2008.\4\

The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ NYSE Euronext, the ultimate parent company of the Exchange,
has agreed to acquire the Amex pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of January 17, 2008. After the closing of the
Merger, the Amex will be renamed NYSE Alternext US LLC.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58297 (August 4,
2008), 73 FR 46683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes that securities transferring to NYSE Arca
from NYSE Alternext US after the closing of the Merger will not be
charged any prorated annual fee for the remainder of the year in which
the Merger takes place. The fee waiver in the preceding sentence will
be of no further effect if the closing of the Merger does not take
place by March 31, 2009.
    The Exchange believes this proposed fee waiver does not render the
allocation of its listing fees inequitable or unfairly discriminatory,
in particular because, after the Merger, NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') will perform listed company regulation for both the
Exchange and NYSE Alternext US, including a substantial review of
companies upon original listing. The Exchange notes that many of the
regulatory staff who currently perform initial and continued listing
reviews at the Amex will become employees of NYSE Regulation at the
time of the Merger and will continue to perform the same duties with
respect to NYSE Alternext US securities after the Merger. The Exchange
represents that securities transferring from NYSE Alternext US will be
subjected to the same rigorous regulatory review as any other
securities with respect to which an application for listing is made to
the Exchange. However, the Exchange expects that, on average, the
review of securities transferring from NYSE Alternext US to the
Exchange will be less costly than the review of a transfer from an
unaffiliated market, as the Amex listing regulatory staff that will
have been absorbed by NYSE Regulation will already have performed a
substantial review of any NYSE Alternext US-listed issuer, and NYSE
Regulation will be able to rely on that prior work as a baseline in
qualifying the issuer for listing on the Exchange and in conducting
ongoing compliance activities with respect to any such issuer. In
support of its proposal, the Exchange also notes that transferring
issuers would have already paid annual continued listing fees to the
Amex for the calendar year in which the transfer took place.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with sections 6(b)(4) \5\ and 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\6\ which require that an exchange have rules that provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and other persons using its facilities, and are designed,
among other things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, to protect investors and the
public interest, and to not permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National securities exchanges traditionally assess annual listing
fees on listed companies at the beginning of the calendar year. When a
company transfers to another marketplace, such annual fees are
typically pro-rated by the new market for the remainder of the calendar
year. Annual fees aid a listed market in, among other things,
conducting its regulatory responsibilities to ensure compliance by
listed companies with continued listing standards and other regulatory
requirements. The Commission notes that an Amex issuer seeking to
transfer to the Exchange has already paid annual continued listing fees
to another national securities exchange for the calendar year in which
it transferred. Further, the Commission recognizes that subsequent to
the consummation of the Merger, both Amex as NYSE Alternext US and NYSE
Arca will be under the same common ownership. The Commission also notes
that the Exchange anticipates the review of securities transferring
from NYSE Alternext US to be less costly than the review of a transfer
from an unaffiliated market, because Amex listing regulatory staff that
will be part of NYSE Regulation will continue to perform both initial
and continued listing reviews. However, the Commission expects, and the
Exchange has represented, that a rigorous and independent review of
compliance with the listing standards will be conducted for any company
seeking to take advantage of the fee waiver, just as for any company
that lists on the Exchange. The Commission expects the Exchange to
maintain its commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight of the
listing process and its ongoing compliance review of listed companies
under its regulatory program.
    In summary, for the reasons set forth above, including NYSE Arca's
assertion that the same regulatory staff on Amex (that will have been
absorbed by NYSE Regulation) will have conducted a substantial review
of an Amex company that NYSE Regulation will be able to rely upon as a
baseline in qualifying the company for listing on the Exchange and in
conducting ongoing compliance activities with respect to any such
company, the Commission believes it is not inequitable or unfair to
provide for a waiver of annual fees for a limited period of time after
the merger is consummated.
    Based on the above, the Commission believes the proposed fee waiver
does not constitute an inequitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges under section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ does not permit
unfair discrimination between issuers under section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\9\ and is otherwise consistent with the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-78) is hereby
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22655 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 61012]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21878]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR22-6-000]

FP Wheeler Midstream LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on September 29, 2022, FP Wheeler Midstream LLC
filed a petition seeking a temporary waiver of the tariff filing and
reporting requirements of sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce
Act and Parts 341 and 357 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
regulations (Commission), all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214. Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on October 31, 2022.

    Dated: October 3, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21878 Filed 10-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 143 (Friday, July 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43514-43515]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17516]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Form N-17f-1. SEC File No. 270-316, OMB Control No. 3235-0359.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Form N-17f-1 (17 CFR 274.219) is entitled ``Certificate of
Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management
Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities
Exchanges.'' The form serves as a cover sheet to the accountant's
certificate that is required to be filed periodically with the
Commission pursuant to rule 17f-1 (17 CFR 270.17f-1) under the Act,
entitled ``Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities
Exchanges,'' which sets forth the conditions under which a fund may
place its assets in the custody of a member of a national securities
exchange. Rule 17f-1 requires, among other things, that an independent
public accountant verify the fund's assets at the end of every annual
and semi-annual fiscal period, and at least one other time during the
fiscal year as chosen by the independent accountant. Requiring an
independent accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of a
member of a national securities exchange assists Commission staff in
its inspection program and helps to ensure that the fund assets are
subject to proper auditing procedures. The accountant's certificate
stating that it has made an examination, and describing the nature and
the extent of the examination, must be attached to Form N-17f-1 and
filed with the Commission promptly after each examination. The form
facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificates, and increases
the accessibility of the certificates to both Commission staff and
interested investors. Commission staff estimates that it takes: (i) 1
hour of clerical time to prepare and file Form N-17f-1; and (ii) 0.5
hour for the fund's chief compliance officer to review Form N-17f-1
prior to filing with the Commission, for a total of 1.5 hours. Each
fund is required to make 3 filings annually, for a total annual burden
per fund of approximately 4.5 hours.\1\ Commission staff estimates that
an average of 4 funds currently file Form

N-17f-1 with the Commission 3 times each year, for a total of 12
responses annually.\2\ The total annual hour burden for Form N-17f-1 is
therefore estimated to be approximately 18 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1.5
hours x 3 responses annually = 4.5 hours).
    \2\ This estimate is based on a review of Form N-17f-1 filings
made with the Commission over the last three years.
    \3\ This estimate is based on the following calculations: (4.5
hours x 4 funds = 18 total hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules. Compliance with the collections of information
required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets
in the custody of a national securities exchange member. Responses will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid control number.
    The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the
burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 21, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17516 Filed 7-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Resonse to Comments June 13, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Analysis of proposed changes to sodium chlorate's application rates and maximum treated area on potential ecological risks presented in EFED's reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) document.

FROM: Brian Anderson, Biologist Silvia Termes, Chemist Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

THRU: Dan Rieder, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 3 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

TO: Molly Clayton Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD) ( 7505C) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Analysis of proposed changes to sodium chlorate use patterns EFED evaluated changes in potential exposures and risks to non target aquatic and terrestrial organisms presented in the EFED chapter of the reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) document on sodium chlorate. These changes in risks to non target organisms are the result of a proposal to change the maximum labeled application rate from 520 lbs a. i./ Acre with no specified maximum treated area to 392 lbs a. i./ Acre ( 0.9 lbs / 100 ft2) with a maximum applied area of 8000 ft2 ( approximately 1/ 5 acre). The effect of these changes on ecological risks presented in the EFED chapter of the sodium chlorate RED is summarized below.

Sodium chlorate is used in both agricultural and non agricultural settings. Changes in agricultural use patterns were not proposed at this time; therefore, agricultural uses are not considered as part of this analysis.

Aquatic Organisms.

EECs presented in the RED for non agricultural uses were as high as 39 mg/ L based on an application rate of 620 lbs a. i./ Acre. However, the sodium chlorate use at 620 lbs a. i./ Acre was " under asphalt"; therefore, EFED presumed that aquatic exposure would be negligible from this use. The next highest application rate was 520 lbs a. i./ Acre, which resulted in an EEC of 31 mg/ L ( Table 3 7 in the RED).

Based on a reduction in the highest application rate for non agricultural uses from 520 lbs a. i./ Acre to 392 lbs a. i./ Acre and a reduction in the maximum treated area from 100% to 20% of an acre ( 8000 ft2), aquatic EECs would be expected to be reduced from 31 mg/ L to 4.7 mg/ L in EFED's standard ecological pond.

The Agency's LOC was not exceeded for fish or invertebrates. The only aquatic LOC that was exceeded was for endangered vascular plants ( RQ = 12.6). Therefore, reduction in the application rate and treated area was only evaluated for vascular plants. Based on an EEC of 4.7 mg/ L and a NOAEC of 3.1 mg/ L in duckweed, the endangered vascular plant RQ would be reduced from 12.6 to 1.5, which is a significant improvement, but is still above the Agency's LOC of 1.0. EFED notes that several required studies in aquatic plants have not been submitted; therefore, there remains additional uncertainty in the aquatic plant assessment in that if other plants are more sensitive, the RQs would be greater.

Terrestrial Organisms Based on the available laboratory studies, sodium chlorate is not expected to be acutely toxic to mammals or birds; however, potential acute risk to terrestrial organisms was identified in the RED based on the high application rates and associated high EECs on potential food items of these organisms. In addition, sodium chlorate was shown to induce frank reproductive effects in bobwhite quail at 964 mg/ L; the no adverse effect concentration was 271 mg/ L ( MRID 46729701). Mammals were less sensitive than birds to reproductive effects. A free standing NOAEC of 500 mg/ L ( meaning that no reproductive effects were observed at any concentration tested) was reported in a 2 generation reproduction toxicity study in rats ( MRID 46524001).

The highest estimated environmental concentrations presented in the RED were substantially higher than any dose or concentration tested in the available acute or chronic toxicity studies. Reducing the maximum application rate from 520 lbs a. i./ Acre to 392 lbs a. i./ Acre would reduce the estimated environmental concentrations of chlorate by approximately 25%, but would not change LOC exceedances presented in the RED. Reduction of the maximum treated area to 1/ 5th of an acre would be expected to reduce the likelihood that a terrestrial organism will come into contact and consume all of its diet from that area; however, localized concentrations ( and resulting risk quotients) within the treated area would only be reduced by 25% of the values presented in the RED.