[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39635-39636]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17540]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32779; File No. 812-14723]

TIAA-CREF Funds, et al.

August 15, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an exemption
from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c)
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections
17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of
the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint
arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would
permit certain registered open-end management investment companies to
participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
    Applicants: TIAA-CREF Funds, TIAA-CREF Life Funds, College
Retirement Equities Fund and TIAA Separate Account VA-1, each
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company
with one or more series or accounts, and Teachers Advisors, LLC
(``TA'') and TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC (``TCIM''), each
registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 8, 2016 and
amended on April 13, 2017 and July 11, 2017.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on September 11, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on
the applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: c/o Rachael Zufall,
Nuveen, LLC, 8500 Andrew Carnegie Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28262.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asaf Barouk, Attorney-Advisor, at
(202) 551-4029, or Kaitlin Bottock, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Summary of the Application

    1. Applicants request an order that would permit the applicants to
participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend
money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover
unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or
trade fails.\1\ The Funds will not borrow under the facility for
leverage purposes and the loans' duration will be no more than 7
days.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the applicants
and to any existing or future registered open-end or closed-end
management investment company or series thereof for which TA or TCIM
or any successor thereto or an investment adviser controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with TA or TCIM or any
successor thereto serves as investment adviser (each a ``Fund'' and
collectively the ``Funds'' and each such investment adviser an
``Adviser''). For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is
limited to any entity that results from a reorganization into
another jurisdiction or a change in the type of a business
organization. The term ``Adviser'' does not include Nuveen Fund
Advisors, LLC, and the term ``Funds'' does not include any
registered investment companies for which Nuveen Fund Advisors, LLC
serves as investment adviser. The Funds that are closed-end
management investment companies will not participate as borrowers in
the interfund lending facility.
    \2\ Any Fund, however, will be able to call a loan on one
business day's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a
borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank
borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is
insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds
making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn
interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from
investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short
term money market instruments. Thus, applicants assert that the
facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Among others, an Adviser, through a designated committee, would
administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its
duties under the investment management agreements with the Funds and
would receive no additional fee as compensation for its services in
connection with the administration of the facility. The facility would
be subject to oversight and certain approvals by the Funds' Board,
including, among others, approval of the interest rate formula and of
the method for allocating loans across Funds, as well as review of the
process in place to evaluate the liquidity implications for the Funds.
A Fund's aggregate outstanding interfund loans will not exceed 15% of
its net assets, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5%
of the lending Fund's net assets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under certain circumstances, a borrowing Fund will be
required to pledge collateral to secure the loan.

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

    4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns
underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of
the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative
costs or fees to the Funds.\4\ Applicants also assert that the proposed
transactions do not raise the concerns underlying sections 17(a)(1),
17(a)(3), 17(d) and 21(b) of the Act as the Funds would not engage in
lending transactions that unfairly benefit insiders or are detrimental
to the Funds. Applicants state that the facility will offer both
reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all
participating Funds and each Fund would have an equal opportunity to
borrow and lend on equal terms based on an interest rate formula that
is objective and verifiable. With respect to the relief from section
17(a)(2) of the Act, applicants note that any collateral pledged to
secure an interfund loan would be subject to the same conditions
imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the
quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is
another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other
circumstance).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Applicants state that the obligation to repay an interfund
loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of
sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act.
    \5\ Applicants state that any pledge of securities to secure an
interfund loan could constitute a purchase of securities for
purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section
18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility
(because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of
the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because
the open-end Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section
18(f)(1) that all borrowings of the open-end Fund, including combined
interfund loans and bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and
reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person
concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies
of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule
17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application
filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the
participation of the registered investment company in a joint
enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis
proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of
the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of the other
participants.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17540 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


prongs 3 and 4,
                                                                                (E), (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). Elements
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) prongs 1
                                                                                and 2 are
                                                                                disapproved.

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

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

0
19. Section 52.1922 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1922  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (c) The portion of the SIP submittal from October 25, 2018,
addressing Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) is disapproved.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
20. Section 52.2275 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the first paragraph (m); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (o).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2275  Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (o) Disapproval. The portion of the SIP submittal from September
12, 2018, addressing Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2015 ozone NAAQS is disapproved.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
21. Section 52.2520 is amended in the table in paragraph (e) by adding
the entry ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure   Statewide...........     2/4/2019  2/13/2023, [INSERT    Disapproval--EPA is
 Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour                                      FEDERAL REGISTER      disapproving West
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                          CITATION].            Virginia's February
                                                                                4, 2019, State
                                                                                Implementation Plan
                                                                                (SIP) revision
                                                                                intended to address
                                                                                the CAA section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                interstate
                                                                                transport
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                the 2015 8-hour
                                                                                ozone national
                                                                                ambient air quality
                                                                                standard (NAAQS).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
22. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (l) Partial approval/disapproval. In a September 14, 2018,
submission, WDNR certified that the State has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H),
and (J) through (M) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. For section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prong 1 is approved and prong 2 is disapproved. EPA
did not take action on any other elements. We will address the
remaining requirements in a separate action.

[FR Doc. 2023-02407 Filed 2-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21043]
[DOCID:fr18ap08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0267]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL 8K
Run

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operations of the
Cass Street Drawbridge, across the Illinois Waterway, Mile 288.1, at
Joliet, Illinois. The deviation is necessary for the bridge to remain
closed to navigation during the effective period for the Joliet City
Center Partnership 8K Run.

DATES: This temporary deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30
a.m., May 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2008-0267 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. They are also available for inspection
or copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and
the Robert A. Young Federal Building, Room 2.107F, 1222 Spruce Street,
St. Louis, MO 63103-2832, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge
Administrator,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Illinois Department of Transportation
requested a temporary deviation for the Cass Street Drawbridge, mile
288.1, at Joliet, Illinois across the Illinois Waterway as the
drawbridge is along the route of the Joliet City Center Partnership 8K
Run. The Cass Street Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with
33 CFR 117.393(c), which states the general requirement that
drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels
when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart, except
that they need not open from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m.
to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Saturday. In order to facilitate the
annual event, the drawbridge must be kept in the closed-to-navigation
position. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed to
navigation from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., May 10, 2008.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Illinois Waterway.
    The Cass Street Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position,
provides a vertical clearance of 16.5 feet above normal pool.
Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and
recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated
with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 8, 2008.
Roger K. Wiebusch,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-8472 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72118-72120]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28158]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0110]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 29 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on November 19, 2019. The
exemptions expire on November 19, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2019-0110 and choose the document to review. If you

do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 16, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 29 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (FR 84
55375). The public comment period ended on November 15, 2019, and four
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received six comments in this proceeding. Edward Wassels from
St. Louis Missouri commented that the hearing exemption process is
unclear and would like FMCSA to provide an online status indication
tool to help applicants better understand where their application is in
the hearing exemption process. He would also like FMCSA to provide a
step-by-step guide to help applicants have a better understanding of
how the process works. FMCSA acknowledges Mr. Wassels' concerns and has
updated the hearing application packages located on the FMCSA website
with an overview of the exemption process to assist applicants in
understanding the process and what specific information must be
submitted. Dain Covington of Williamsburg, Virginia encourages those
who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing and interested in operating a CMV to
apply for a hearing exemption from FMCSA in order to obtain a CDL. He
also recommended FMCSA reduce the waiting time for those who apply for
a hearing exemption to speed up the process of obtaining a CDL. FMCSA
processes hearing exemptions as quickly as possible. However, the
Agency is required to publish a Federal Register notice allowing the
public 30 days to comment on the application for each exemption prior
to making a final determination whether to grant or deny each
exemption. J. T. Stryszyk provided two identical comments in support of
Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals being able to obtain a hearing
exemption so that they can operate a CMV in interstate commerce. An
anonymous commenter also provided support. Nicole Neft of Driver and
Vehicle Services, State of Minnesota commented that Minnesota has no
objections to Ryan Arrington and Abdiwahab Olow receiving a hearing
exemption to drive in interstate commerce.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 29 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Jeremy T. Albright (CA)
Byron S. Allen (FL)
Carlos Arellano (CA)
Ryan Arrington (MN)
Jeffrey A. Barbuto NH)
Dain Covington (VA)
Tymekia L. Crawford (TX)
Brian J. Davlin (NV)
John Fazio (OH)
Alvin Grasty (PA)
Derek Hawkins (NH)
Emil Iontchev (IL)
Shane Kennedy (FL)
Lacey Mathis (TN)
Billy Joe McClain (NY)
Danny W. McGowan (WV)
Allan Mitchell (NY)
Ronald Misner (CA)
Matthew Moore (TX)
Abdiwahab S. Olow (MN)
Timothy Roberts (TN)
Gilbert L. Swagger (TX)
Teddy R. Tice (NY)
Cameron Thomas (IA)
Tyler Turner (TN)
Jerry Ward (NC)
Edward Wessels (MO)
Joseph Williams (MD)
Thomas E. Wray (NC)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

    Issued on: December 20, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-28158 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46474-46477]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18748]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72751; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Related to the Priority Afforded to In-
Crowd Participants Respecting Crossing, Facilitation, and Solicited
Orders in Open Outcry Trading

August 4, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On April 23, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Exchange'' or ``Phlx'')
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
revise the priority afforded to in-crowd participants respecting
crossing, facilitation, and solicited orders in open outcry trading
(``Proposal''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on May 13, 2014.\3\ On June 23, 2014, the
Commission extended the time period in which to either approve the
Proposal, disapprove the Proposal, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposal to August 11,
2014.\4\ The Commission received two comment letters from one commenter
regarding the Proposal \5\ and one response letter from Phlx.\6\ On
July 30, 2014, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposal.\7\
The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments
on the Proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested
persons and to institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the
Act \8\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the Proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72119 (May 7, 2014),
79 FR 27351 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72447 (June 23,
2014), 79 FR 36569 (June 27, 2014).
    \5\ See Letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and General
Counsel, International Securities Exchange, LLC, dated June 3, 2014
(``ISE Letter I''); Letter from Michael J. Simon, Secretary and
General Counsel, International Securities Exchange, LLC, dated July
8, 2014 (``ISE Letter II'').
    \6\ See Letter from Carla Behnfeldt, Associate General Counsel,
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., dated June 20, 2014 (``Phlx Response
Letter'').
    \7\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarifies a reference to a
previous Phlx filing and an example. Amendment No. 1 has been placed
in the public comment file for SR-Phlx-2014-23 at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2014-23/phlx201423.shtml (see letter
from Carla Behnfeldt, Associate General Counsel, The NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated July 30, 2014) and also
is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLX/pdf/phlx-filings/2014/SR-Phlx-2014-23_Amendment_1.pdf.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1014, Commentary
.05(c)(ii), to afford priority in open outcry trading to in-crowd
participants over out-of-crowd Streaming Quote Traders (``SQTs'') \9\,
Remote Specialists \10\, and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (``RSQTs''
)\11\ and over out-of-crowd

broker-dealer limit orders on the limit order book (but not over public
customer orders) in crossing \12\, facilitation \13\, and solicited
\14\ orders, regardless of order size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An SQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A) as a
Registered Options Trader (``ROT'') who has received permission from
the Exchange to generate and submit option quotations electronically
in options to which such SQT is assigned. Types of ROTs include
SQTs, RSQTs and non-SQTs, which by definition are neither SQTs nor
RSQTs. A Registered Options Trader is defined in Exchange Rule
1014(b)(i) as a regular member of the Exchange located on the
trading floor who has received permission from the Exchange to trade
in options for his own account. See Phlx Rules 1014(b)(i) and (ii).
    \10\ A Remote Specialist is a qualified RSQT approved by the
Exchange to function as a specialist in one or more options if the
Exchange determines that it cannot allocate such options to a floor
based specialist. A Remote Specialist has all the rights and
obligations of a specialist, unless Exchange rules provide
otherwise. See Phlx Rules 501 and 1020.
    \11\ A RSQT is defined in Exchange Rule 1014(b)(ii)(B) as an ROT
that is a member affiliated with a Remote Streaming Quote Trader
Organization (``RSQTO'') with no physical trading floor presence who
has received permission from the Exchange to generate and submit
option quotations electronically in options to which such RSQT has
been assigned. A qualified RSQT may function as a Remote Specialist
upon Exchange approval. An RSQT may only submit such quotations
electronically from off the floor of the Exchange. An RSQT may not
submit option quotations in eligible options to which such RSQT is
assigned to the extent that the RSQT is also approved as a Remote
Specialist in the same options. An RSQT may only trade in a market
making capacity in classes of options in which he is assigned or
approved as a Remote Specialist. An RSQTO is a member organization
in good standing that satisfies the RSQTO readiness requirements in
Phlx Rule 507(a)(i).
    \12\ A crossing order occurs when an options Floor Broker holds
orders (except for floor qualified contingent cross orders, as
defined in Exchange Rule 1064(e)) to buy and sell the same option
series. Such a Floor Broker may cross such orders, provided that the
trading crowd is given an opportunity to bid and offer for such
option series in accordance with Exchange rules. See Phlx Rule
1064(a).
    \13\ A facilitation order occurs when an options Floor Broker
holds an options order (except for floor qualified contingent cross
orders, as defined in Exchange Rule 1064(e)) for a public customer
and a contra-side order. Such a Floor Broker may execute such orders
as a facilitation order, provided that such Floor Broker proceeds in
accordance with Exchange rules concerning facilitation orders. See
Phlx Rule 1064(b).
    \14\ A solicitation occurs whenever an order (except for floor
qualified contingent cross orders, as defined in Exchange Rule
1064(e)), other than a cross, is presented for execution in the
trading crowd resulting from an away-from-the-crowd expression of
interests to trade by one broker dealer to another. See Phlx Rule
1064(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Commentary .05(c)(i) to Phlx Rule 1014 provides that, in
the event that a Floor Broker \15\ or specialist \16\ presents a non-
electronic order in which an RSQT is assigned or which is allocated to
a Remote Specialist, and/or in which an SQT assigned in such option is
not a crowd participant (collectively, ``Non-Crowd Participants''),
such Non-Crowd Participant may not participate in trades stemming from
such a non-electronic order unless the non-electronic order is executed
at the price quoted by the Non-Crowd Participant at the time of
execution. If the non-electronic order is executed at the price quoted
by the Non-Crowd Participant, the Non-Crowd Participant may participate
in the trade unless the order was a crossing, facilitation, or
solicited order with a size of at least 500 contracts on each side.\17\
If the order is a crossing, facilitation, or solicited order with a
size of at least 500 contracts on each side, Commentary .05(c)(ii)
gives priority to in-crowd participants (including, for purposes of
Commentary .05(c)(ii) only, Floor Brokers) over Non-Crowd Participants
and over out-of-crowd broker-dealer limit orders on the limit order
book, but not over public customer orders.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A ``Floor Broker'' is an individual who is registered with
the Exchange for the purpose, while on the Exchange's options floor,
of accepting and handling options orders received from members and
member organizations. See Phlx Rule 1060.
    \16\ A ``Specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \17\ This in-crowd priority applies only to crossing,
facilitation, and solicited orders represented in open outcry, and
does not apply to orders submitted electronically via the Exchange's
electronic options trading platform, to which other priority rules
apply. See, e.g., Phlx Rules 1014(g)(vii) and (viii).
    \18\ According to the Exchange, public customer limit orders
represented in the trading crowd and resting on the limit order book
have, and will continue to have, priority over all other
participants and accordingly must be executed up to the aggregate
size of such orders before any in-crowd participant is entitled to
priority. Public customer orders on the limit order book that are
eligible for execution are required to be executed before a Floor
Broker may execute its order in the crowd and/or with a contra-side
order it holds. See Phlx Rule 1014, Commentary .05(c)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the 500 contract minimum order
size from Phlx Rule 1014, Commentary .05(c)(ii). As amended, the rule
would afford priority to in-crowd participants over Non-Crowd
Participants and out-of-crowd broker-dealer limit orders in crossing,
facilitation, and solicited orders regardless of the size of those
orders. The Exchange states that it initially permitted Non-Crowd
Participants to participate in Floor Broker crosses to foster
electronic options trading.\19\ In 2006, the Exchange adopted the size
requirement, which continued to permit Non-Crowd Participants to
participate in smaller (under five hundred contracts) Floor Broker
crosses.\20\ According to the Exchange, electronic options trading is
well-established and there is no longer a need for such special rules
and incentives to develop electronic trading further.\21\ The Exchange
notes that another options exchange does not have the same
differentiation of priority for orders of fewer than 500 contracts.\22\
The Exchange believes that its Proposal will encourage order flow
providers to send additional crossing, facilitation, and solicited
orders to the Exchange without concern that the order may not be
completely executed by the trading crowd.\23\ The Exchange also
believes that affording priority to in-crowd participants regardless of
size will attract additional smaller cross orders to the Exchange and
allow in-crowd market makers to compete for smaller orders.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 7.
    \20\ See Notice, 79 FR at 27352. See also Amendment No. 1, supra
note 7.
    \21\ See Notice, 79 FR at 27352. See also Amendment No. 1, supra
note 7.
    \22\ See Notice, 79 FR at 27352-53. See also Chicago Board
Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule 6.74, Crossing Orders.
    \23\ See Notice, 79 FR at 27353.
    \24\ See Notice, 79 FR at 27353-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters and Phlx's Response

    As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters from
one commenter\25\ and one response letter from Phlx.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 5.
    \26\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its first letter, the commenter opposes the Proposal and
requests that the Commission institute proceedings to disapprove the
Proposal. The commenter argues that the Proposal unfairly denies
electronic participants the ability to participate in the execution of
open outcry orders along with in-crowd participants at the same
price.\27\ The commenter states its view that the Exchange has not
provided sufficient justification for allocating smaller trades
negotiated on its floor to counterparties in the trading crowd ahead of
same-priced orders from electronic participants.\28\ The commenter
believes that the Proposal will encourage Phlx participants to bring
more orders to the floor, where they may receive a higher trade
allocation and may be able to internalize a trade, instead of executing
those orders through electronic auction systems.\29\ The commenter
argues that, even with the current 500 contract minimum, Phlx's
priority rules disadvantage orders being internalized to the benefit of
the internalizing brokers, as these orders receive relatively little
price competition.\30\ The commenter suggests that giving priority to
small orders on the floor will further skew participants' incentives to
bring orders to the floor to achieve a frictionless ``clean cross'' and
deprive customers of vigorous competition for these orders.\31\ The
commenter states that most electronic auctions require that orders be
exposed to all other participants trading on the exchange, and orders
that are not exposed, such as qualified contingent crosses, are
required to be for a large size.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See ISE Letter I.
    \28\ See ISE Letter I.
    \29\ See ISE Letter I.
    \30\ See ISE Letter I at 1-2.
    \31\ See ISE Letter I at 2.
    \32\ See ISE Letter I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also argues that, because no trade information is
disseminated about orders executed on the floor to electronic
participants, who may be willing to provide liquidity to orders
executed on the Exchange floor, such orders will not benefit from
potential price improvement built into electronic auctions.\33\ The
commenter believes that the Proposal will largely limit price
competition for small orders to participants physically present in the
crowd at the time a floor cross is

announced and transacted.\34\ The commenter further argues that the
Proposal would ignore electronic orders and quotes, especially for
small orders, and cause more orders to be crossed at prices that have
not been sufficiently vetted by the participants most likely to offer
price improvement.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See ISE Letter I at 2.
    \34\ See ISE Letter I at 2.
    \35\ See ISE Letter I at 2. The commenter expressed its view
that it is inappropriate to ignore electronic quotes, especially for
smaller orders where substantial capital commitment or efforts to
find liquidity are not necessary. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenter's concerns regarding in-crowd
liquidity, Phlx states that on-floor liquidity on Phlx in many issues
exceeds the displayed wider electronic markets.\36\ Phlx argues that
the Proposal merely removes the 500 contract minimum and that another
options exchange does not have the same differentiation of priority for
orders of fewer than 500 contracts.\37\ Phlx believes that attracting
smaller orders to the trading floor fosters an environment for on-floor
liquidity providers to continue to provide price improvement and size
improvement.\38\ In response to the commenter's suggestion that the
Proposal will facilitate internalization, Phlx states that priority
will be afforded to all in-crowd participants, including market makers,
not just floor brokers.\39\ Phlx also believes that the Proposal should
encourage small participants, such as floor-based market makers, to
continue to make markets, which Phlx believes will improve the quality
of execution for these smaller orders.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Phlx Response Letter.
    \37\ See Phlx Response Letter (citing CBOE Rule 6.74, Crossing
Orders).
    \38\ See Phlx Response Letter at 2.
    \39\ See Phlx Response Letter at 2.
    \40\ See Phlx Response Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its second letter, the commenter replies to the Phlx Response
Letter and reiterates its request that the Commission institute
proceedings to disapprove the Proposal. In response to Phlx's statement
that, based on Phlx's experience, on-floor liquidity on Phlx in many
issues exceeds the displayed wider electronic markets,\41\ the
commenter requests that the Commission require Phlx to provide data
that would allow the Commission to gauge the level of participation of
floor-based market makers against orders represented in open outcry,
and price improvement provided by these participants.\42\ The commenter
questions whether Phlx needs to afford priority to in-crowd liquidity
providers if they are offering active price improvement.\43\ The
commenter states its view that to the extent that in-crowd participants
provide price improvement to orders represented in open outcry, their
orders are already entitled to priority over other orders at a worse
price, including electronic quotes.\44\ The commenter asserts that the
Proposal is intended to allow in-crowd participants to internalize
orders without being subject to competition from active liquidity
providers in the electronic markets.\45\ The commenter argues that
Phlx's reliance on the CBOE rule is irrelevant as the Phlx Proposal
must stand on its own, and, in any event, believes that the in-crowd
priority rules of Phlx and CBOE are not in the public interest.\46\ The
commenter argues that the proposed expansion of these rules would only
foster internalization and curtail price improvement.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Phlx Response Letter.
    \42\ See ISE Letter II.
    \43\ See ISE Letter II.
    \44\ See ISE Letter II at 1-2.
    \45\ See ISE Letter II at 2.
    \46\ See ISE Letter II at 2.
    \47\ See ISE Letter II at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Disapprove SR-Phlx-2014-23 and
Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \48\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved.\49\ Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues that are raised by the Proposal and are discussed below.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to comment on the Proposal, as modified
by Amendment No. 1, and to provide the Commission with additional
comment to inform the Commission's analysis whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \49\ Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act provides that proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove a proposed rule change must be
concluded within 180 days of the date of publication of notice of
the filing of the proposed rule change. The time for conclusion of
the proceedings may be extended for up to an additional 60 days if
the Commission finds good cause for such extension and publishes its
reasons for so finding or if the self-regulatory organization
consents to the extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. In
particular, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \50\ requires that the rules of
an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. In addition, Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \51\ requires that
rules of an exchange do not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
would afford priority to in-crowd participants over Non-Crowd
Participants and out-of-crowd broker-dealer limit orders on the limit
order book in crossing, facilitation, and solicited orders regardless
of order size. The Exchange's current rule affords priority to in-crowd
participants over Non-Crowd Participants and out-of-crowd broker-dealer
limit orders on the limit order book in crossing, facilitation, and
solicited orders with a size of at least 500 contracts on each side. As
noted above, the commenter opposing the Proposal raises concerns, among
other things, as to whether the Proposal unfairly denies electronic
participants the ability to participate in the execution of open outcry
orders along with in-crowd participants at the same price. The
commenter further believes that the Proposal will encourage Phlx
participants to send orders to the floor where the Phlx participant may
receive a higher trade allocation and be able to internalize the
trade--rather than executing the order in the electronic market where
the customer order may be subject to more intense price competition.
The commenter further stated its belief that insulating small order
customers brought to the floor from competition by electronic
participants may cause more orders to be crossed at prices that have
not been sufficiently vetted by the participants most likely to offer
price improvement.\52\ This commenter believes that Phlx has provided
insufficient justification for allocating smaller trades negotiated on
its floor to counterparties in the trading crowd ahead of same-priced
orders from electronic participants.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See ISE Letter I. See also ISE Letter II.
    \53\ See ISE Letter I.

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

    The Commission believes that questions are raised as to whether the
Proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with: (1) The
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, including whether the
Exchange's proposed revisions to its rules regarding the order of
priority in open outcry are designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers; and (2) the requirements of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
including whether the Exchange's proposed revisions to its rules
regarding the order or priority in open outcry impose any unnecessary
or inappropriate burden on competition. The Commission believes that
the issues raised by the Proposal can benefit from additional
consideration and evaluation.

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the
Proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission
invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is inconsistent
with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) or any other provision of the Act, or
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Pub. L. 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written views, data, and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 1 and regarding whether the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or
disapproved by August 29, 2014. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
September 12, 2014. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-23 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-Phlx-2014-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method.
    The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet
Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-23 and should be
submitted on or before August 29, 2014. If comments are received, any
rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 12, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18748 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2827-2832]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00780]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0814; FRL-9921-54-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Colorado; Second Ten-Year PM10 Maintenance Plan for
Steamboat Springs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
the State of Colorado. On May 11, 2012, the designee of the Governor of
Colorado submitted to EPA a revised maintenance plan for the Steamboat
Springs area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
10 microns (PM10). The SIP was adopted by the State on
December 15, 2011. As required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A,
this revised maintenance plan addresses maintenance of the
PM10 standard for a second 10-year period beyond the area's
original redesignation to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In
addition, EPA is approving the revised maintenance plan's 2024
transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) for
PM10. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 175A
of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 23, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 20, 2015. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct
final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2013-0814, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2013-0814. 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 information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
    (ii) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (iii) The initials APCD mean or refer to the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division.
    (iv) The initials AQCC mean or refer to the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission.
    (v) The words Colorado and State mean or refer to the State of
Colorado.
    (vi) The initials MVEB mean or refer to motor vehicle emissions
budget.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standard.
    (viii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10
micrometers (coarse particulate matter).
    (ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (x) The initials TSD mean or refer to technical support document.

I. General Information

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    The Steamboat Springs area was designated unclassifiable for the
1987 PM10 NAAQS by operation of law upon enactment of the
CAA Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991. However, in
January and February of 1991, the EPA notified the Governors of those
States, including the State of Colorado, which recorded violations of
the PM10 standard after January 1, 1989, that EPA believed
that those areas should be redesignated as nonattainment for
PM10. In the Federal Register published on April 22, 1991
(56 FR 16274), EPA identified those PM10 areas for which the
EPA had notified the Governors of affected States that the area's
PM10 designation should be revised to nonattainment. After
notification, the Governor of each affected state was required to
submit to EPA the redesignation he or she considered appropriate for
each area. The EPA proceeded to redesignate to nonattainment 10 areas,
including the Steamboat Springs area, for PM10 on December
21, 1993 (58 FR 67334). EPA fully approved Colorado's nonattainment
area SIP for the Steamboat Springs area on December 31, 1997 (62 FR
68188).
    On July 31, 2002, the Governor of Colorado submitted a request to
EPA to redesignate the Steamboat Springs moderate PM10
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1987 PM10 NAAQS.
Along with this request, the State submitted a maintenance plan, which
demonstrated that the area would continue to attain the PM10
NAAQS through 2015. EPA approved the Steamboat Springs maintenance plan
and redesignation to attainment on October 25, 2004 (69 FR 62210).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-year
maintenance plan must demonstrate continued maintenance of the
applicable NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this
requirement of the Act, the Governor of Colorado's designee submitted
the second 10-year update of the PM10 maintenance plan to
EPA on May 11, 2012 (hereafter; ``revised Steamboat Springs
PM10 Maintenance Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period described in
CAA section 175A(a) was required to extend for at least 10 years
after the redesignation to attainment, which was effective on
November 24, 2004. See 69 FR 62210. So the first maintenance plan
was required to show maintenance at least through 2014. CAA section
175A(b) requires that the second 10-year maintenance plan maintain
the NAAQS for ``10 years after the expiration of the 10-year period
referred to in [section 175A(a)].'' Thus, for the Steamboat Springs
area, the second 10-year period ends 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in 40 CFR 50.6, the level of the national primary and
secondary 24-hour ambient air quality standards for PM10 is
150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). An area attains the 24-
hour PM10 standard when the expected

number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour concentration in excess
of the standard (referred to herein as ``exceedance''), as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is equal to or less than
one, averaged over a three-year period.\2\ See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ An exceedance is defined as a daily value that is above the
level of the 24-hour standard, 150 [micro]g/m\3\, after rounding to
the nearest 10 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., values ending in five or greater
are to be rounded up). Thus, a recorded value of 154 [mu]g/m\3\
would not be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 [mu]g/
m\3\; whereas, a recorded value of 155 [mu]g/m\3\ would be an
exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, section 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below shows the maximum monitored 24-hour PM10
values for the Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance area for
2004-2014. The table reflects that the values for the Steamboat Springs
area are well below the PM10 NAAQS standard of 150 [mu]g/
m\3\.

         Table 1--Steamboat Springs PM10 Maximum 24-Hour Values
  [Based on data from Routt County Court House site, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-107-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                     Maximum value  ([mu]g/m\3\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     2004                                   94
                     2005                                   86
                     2006                                   87
                     2007                                   99
                     2008                                  124
                     2009                                   83
                     2010                                   99
                     2011                                  135
                     2012                                  124
                     2013                                   82
                     2014                                 * 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014.

    Table 2 below shows the estimated number of exceedances for the
Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance area for the three-year
periods starting in 2004 and ending in 2014. The table reflects
continuous attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.

          Table 2--Steamboat Springs PM10 Estimated Exceedances
  [Based on data from Routt County Court House site, AQS Identification
                           Number 08-107-0003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          3-Year estimated number of
        Design value period                      exceedances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                2004-2006                                    0
                2005-2007                                    0
                2006-2008                                    0
                2007-2009                                    0
                2008-2010                                    0
                2009-2011                                    0
                2010-2012                                    0
                2011-2013                                    0
                2012-2014                                  * 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Preliminary 2014 Data only through September 17, 2014.

III. What was the State's process?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that a state provide
reasonable notice and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and
submitting it to EPA.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing for the revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance
Plan on December 15, 2011. The AQCC approved and adopted the revised
Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan directly after the
hearing. The Governor's designee submitted the revised plan to EPA on
May 11, 2012.
    We have evaluated the revised maintenance plan and have determined
that the State met the requirements for reasonable public notice and
public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. On November 11,
2012, by operation of law under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the revised
maintenance plan was deemed to have met the minimum ``completeness''
criteria found in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Revised Steamboat Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan

    The following are the key elements of a Maintenance Plan for
PM10: Emission Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration,
Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment, Contingency
Plan, and MVEB for PM10. Below, we describe our evaluation
of these elements as they pertain to the revised Steamboat Springs
PM10 Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan
includes three inventories of daily PM10 emissions for the
Steamboat Springs area; they are for 2008, 2016 and 2024. The Air
Pollution Control Division (APCD) developed these emission inventories
using EPA-approved emissions modeling methods, and updated
transportation information, demographics data, and reported actual
emissions for point sources. Each emission inventory is a list, by
source category, of the air contaminants directly emitted into the
Steamboat Springs PM10 maintenance area. A more detailed
description of the 2008 and 2024 inventories and information on model
assumptions and parameters for each source category are contained in
the State's PM10 Maintenance Plan Technical Support Document
(TSD). Included in all the inventories are emissions data for:
commercial cooking; construction; fuel combustion; highway vehicles;
non-road vehicles; railroad; road dust; structure fires; woodburning;
and point sources. We find that Colorado has prepared adequate emission
inventories for the area.

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan uses
emission roll-forward modeling to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS through 2024. Using the 2008 and 2024
emissions inventories, the State first determined the projected growth
in PM10 emissions from the 2008 base year to the 2024
maintenance year. The State estimated that emissions would increase
from 5,095.9 pounds per day in 2008 to 7,308.8 pounds per day in 2024.
This represents an increase of 43.4 percent.
    The State then applied this percentage increase to the design day
concentration of 99 [mu]g/m\3\, which was the third highest 24-hour
maximum PM10 value recorded in Steamboat Springs from 2008-
2010. This resulted in an estimated maximum 24-hour PM10
concentration in 2024 of 142 [mu]g/m\3\. This is below the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS of 150 [mu]g/m\3\.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    In the revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan,
the State commits to continue to operate an air quality monitoring
network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and the EPA-approved Colorado
Monitoring SIP Element to verify continued attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS. This includes the continued operation of a
PM10 monitor in the Steamboat Springs area, which the State
will rely on to track PM10 emissions in the maintenance
area.
    Based on the above, we are approving these commitments as
satisfying the relevant requirements. These commitments are similar to
those we approved in the original maintenance plan.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include

contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement
the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    As stated in the revised Steamboat Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan, exceedances trigger one level of response and
violations trigger another. If there is an exceedance, the APCD and
local government staff will develop appropriate contingency measure(s)
intended to prevent or correct a violation of the PM10
standard. The APCD and local government staff will consider relevant
information about historical exceedances, meteorological conditions
related to the exceedance(s), and the most recent estimates of growth
and emissions, and whether the exceedance might be attributed to an
exceptional event. The maintenance plan indicates that the State will
generally notify EPA and local governments in the Steamboat Springs
area within 30 days of the exceedance, but in no event later than 45
days. The process for exceedances will be completed within six months
of the exceedance notification.
    If a violation of the PM10 NAAQS has occurred, a public
hearing process at the State and local level will begin. If the AQCC
agrees that the implementation of local measures will prevent further
exceedances or violations, the AQCC may endorse or approve the local
measures without adopting State requirements. If, however, the AQCC
finds locally adopted contingency measures to be inadequate, the AQCC
will adopt State enforceable measures as deemed necessary to prevent
additional exceedances or violations. The State commits to adopt and
implement any necessary contingency measures within one year after a
violation occurs. Any state enforceable measures that are adopted will
become part of another revised maintenance plan, which will be
submitted to the Colorado Legislature and the EPA for approval.
    The State indentifies the following as potential contingency
measures in the revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance
Plan: (1) increased street sweeping requirements; (2) road paving
requirements; (3) more stringent street sand specifications; (4)
voluntary or mandatory woodburning curtailment; (5) bans on all
woodburning; (6) expanded, mandatory use of alternative de-icers; (7)
re-establishing new source review nonattainment area permitting
requirements for stationary sources; (8) transportation control
measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled; and (9) other
emission control measures appropriate for the area based on the
consideration of cost effectiveness, PM10 emission reduction
potential, economic and social considerations, or other factors that
the State deems appropriate.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised
Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan are sufficient and
meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity Requirements: MVEB for PM10

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. Conformity to a
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule
requires a demonstration that emissions from the Regional
Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program are
consistent with the MVEB(s) contained in a control strategy SIP
revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). A
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions of a pollutant
relied upon in the attainment or maintenance demonstration to attain or
maintain compliance with the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance
area. Further information concerning EPA's interpretations regarding
MVEBs can be found in the preamble to EPA's November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193--62196).
    The revised Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan
contains a single MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day of PM10 for the year
2024, the maintenance year. Once the State submitted the revised plan
with the 2024 MVEB to EPA for approval, 40 CFR 93.118 required that EPA
determine whether the MVEB was adequate.
    Our criteria for determining whether a SIP's MVEB is adequate for
conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), which was
promulgated August 15, 1997 (see 62 FR 43780). Our process for
determining adequacy is described in our July 1, 2004 Transportation
Conformity Rule Amendments (see 69 FR 40004) and in relevant
guidance.\3\ We used these resources in making our adequacy
determination described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004 Final
Transportation Conformity Rule, Conformity Implementation in Multi-
Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and
New Air Quality Standards'' (EPA420-B-04-012 July, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 2013, EPA announced the availability of the revised
Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan, and the
PM10 MVEB, on EPA's transportation conformity adequacy Web
site. EPA solicited public comment on the MVEB, and the public comment
period closed on December 16, 2013. We did not receive any comments.
This information is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#steam-spr-co.
    By letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment dated January 23, 2014, EPA found that the revised
Steamboat Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan and the 2024
PM10 MVEB were adequate for transportation conformity
purposes.\4\ However, we noted in our letter that the revised Steamboat
Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan did not discuss the
PM10 MVEB for 2015 of 21,773 lbs/day from the original
PM10 maintenance plan that EPA approved in 2004 (see 69 FR
62210, October 25, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In a Federal Register dated October 3, 2014, we notified the
public of our finding (see 79 FR 59767). This adequacy determination
became effective on October 20, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1), the EPA-approved 2015
PM10 MVEB must continue to be used for analysis years 2015
through 2023 (as long as such years are within the timeframe of the
transportation plan), unless the State elects to submit a SIP revision
to revise the 2015 PM10 MVEB and EPA approves the SIP
revision. This is because the revised Steamboat Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan did not revise the previously approved 2015
PM10 MVEB nor establish a new MVEB for 2015. Accordingly,
the MVEB `` . . . for the most recent prior year . . . '' (i.e., 2015)
from the original maintenance plan must continue to be used (see 40 CFR
93.118(b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(iv)).
    We note that there is a considerable difference between the 2024
and 2015 budgets--1,103 lbs/day versus 21,773 lbs/day. This is largely
an artifact of changes in the methods, models, and emission factors
used to estimate mobile source emissions. The 2024 MVEB is consistent
with the State's 2024 emissions inventory for vehicle exhaust and road
dust, and, thus, is consistent with the State's maintenance
demonstration for 2024.

    The discrepancy between the 2015 and 2024 MVEBs is not a
significant issue for several reasons. As a practical matter, the 2024
MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day of PM10 would be controlling for any
conformity determination involving the relevant years because
conformity would have to be shown to both the 2015 MVEB and the 2024
MVEB. Also, for any maintenance plan, such as the revised Steamboat
Springs PM10 Maintenance Plan, that only establishes a MVEB
for the last year of the maintenance plan, 40 CFR 93.118(b)(2)(i)
requires that the demonstration of consistency with the budget be
accompanied by a qualitative finding that there are no factors that
would cause or contribute to a new violation or exacerbate an existing
violation in the years before the last year of the maintenance plan.
Therefore, when a conformity determination is prepared which assesses
conformity for the years before 2024, the 2024 MVEB and the underlying
assumptions supporting it would have to be considered. Finally, 40 CFR
93.110 requires the use of the latest planning assumptions in
conformity determinations. Thus, the most current motor vehicle and
road dust emission factors would need to be used, and we expect the
analysis would show greatly reduced PM10 motor vehicle and
road dust emissions from those calculated in the first maintenance
plan. In view of the above, EPA is approving the 2024 PM10
MVEB of 1,103 lbs/day.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the revised Steamboat Springs PM10
Maintenance Plan that was submitted to us on May 11, 2012. We are
approving the revised maintenance plan because it demonstrates
maintenance through 2024 as required by CAA section 175A(b), retains
the control measures from the initial PM10 maintenance plan
that EPA approved in October of 2004, and meets other CAA requirements
for a section 175A maintenance plan. Our approval includes approval of
the revised maintenance plan's 2024 transportation conformity MVEB for
PM10 of 1,103 lbs/day.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule as
meeting Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq, as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 23, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, PM10,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.332 is amended by adding paragraph (u) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.332  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (u) Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan,
PM10 Revised Maintenance Plan for Steamboat Springs, as
adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission on December 15,
2011, State effective on January 30, 2012, and submitted by the
Governor's designee on May 11, 2012. The revised maintenance plan
satisfies all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 2015-00780 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P