[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38875-38877]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15955]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67246; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-071]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4758(a)(1)(A) To
Reflect a Change in NASDAQ's Routing Functionality

June 25, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 14, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4758(a)(1)(A) to reflect a
change in NASDAQ's routing functionality.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *

4758. Order Routing

(a) Order Routing Process

    (1) The Order Routing Process shall be available to Participants
from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and shall route orders
as described below. All routing of orders shall comply with Rule 611
of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act.
    (A) The System provides a variety of routing options. Routing
options may be combined with all available order types and times-in-
force, with the exception of order types and times-in-force whose
terms are inconsistent with the terms of a particular routing
option. The System will consider the quotations only of accessible
markets. The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific trading venues to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. Nasdaq
reserves the right to maintain a different System routing table for
different routing options and to modify the System routing table at
any time without notice. The System routing options are:
    (i) DOT is a routing option for orders that the entering firm
wishes to designate for participation in the NYSE or NYSE Amex
opening or closing processes. DOT orders are routed directly to NYSE
or NYSE Amex, as appropriate. After attempting to execute in the
opening or closing process, DOT orders thereafter check the System
for available shares and are converted into SCAN or STGY orders,
depending on the designation of the entering firm. DOT orders that
are designated to participate in the NYSE or NYSE Amex opening
process but that are entered after 9:30 a.m. will also be converted
into SCAN or STGY orders, depending on the designation of the
entering firm.
    (ii) a. DOTI is a routing option for orders that the entering
firm wishes to direct to the NYSE or NYSE Amex without returning to
the Nasdaq Market Center. DOTI orders check the System for available
shares and then are sent to destinations on the System routing table
before being sent to NYSE or NYSE Amex, as appropriate. DOTI orders
do not return to the Nasdaq Market Center book after routing.
    b. The entering firm may alternatively elect to have DOTI orders
check the System for available shares and thereafter be directly
sent to NYSE or NYSE Amex as appropriate.
    (iii) STGY is a routing option under which orders check the
System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining
shares[then are sent] to destinations on the System routing table.
If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted on the
book. Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked or
crossed by another accessible market center, the System shall route
the order to the locking or crossing market center. SKNY is a form
of STGY in which the entering firm instructs the System to bypass
any market centers included in the STGY System routing table that
are not posting Protected Quotations within the meaning of
Regulation NMS.
    (iv) SCAN is a routing option under which orders check the
System for available shares and simultaneously route the remaining
shares[then are sent] to destinations on the System routing table.
If shares remain un-executed after routing, they are posted on the
book. Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked or
crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center. SKIP is a form of
SCAN in which the entering firm instructs the System to bypass any
market centers included in the SCAN System routing table that are
not posting Protected Quotations within the meaning of Regulation
NMS.
    (v) TFTY is a routing option under which orders check the System
for available shares only if so instructed by the entering firm and
are thereafter routed to destinations on the System routing table.
If shares remain un-

executed after routing, they are posted to the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
market center, the System will not route the order to the locking or
crossing market center.
    (vi) MOPP is a routing option under which orders route only to
Protected Quotations and only for displayed size. If shares remain
unexecuted after routing, they are posted to the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
market center, the System will not route the order to the locking or
crossing market center.
    (vii) SAVE is a routing option under which orders may either (i)
route to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market and NASDAQ OMX PSX, check
the System, and then route to other destinations on the System
routing table, or (ii) may check the System first and then route to
destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain un-
executed after routing, they are posted to the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
market center, the System will not route the order to the locking or
crossing market center.
    (viii) SOLV is a routing option under which orders may either
(i) route to the NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market and NASDAQ OMX PSX,
check the System, and then route to other destinations on the System
routing table, or (ii) may check the System first and then route to
destinations on the System routing table. If shares remain un-
executed after routing, they are posted to the book. Once on the
book, should the order subsequently be locked or crossed by another
accessible market center, the System shall route the order to the
locking or crossing market center.
    (ix) ``Directed Orders'' are routed orders described in Rule
4751.
    (x) LIST is a routing option under which an order, if received
before the security has opened on its primary listing market, will
be routed to the primary listing market for participation in that
market's opening process. After the security has opened on its
primary listing market, unexecuted shares will be returned to the
NASDAQ system. Thereafter, the order will check the System for
available shares and simultaneously route the remaining
shares[before being sent] to destinations on the System routing
table. Any remaining shares will be posted on the book. In addition,
LIST orders entered after the security has opened on the primary
listing market (but before 3:58 p.m.) will check the System for
available shares and simultaneously route the remaining
shares[before being sent] to destinations on the System routing
table, with remaining shares posted on the book. Once on the book,
if the order is subsequently locked or crossed by another market
center, the System will not route the order to the locking or
crossing market center. At 3:58pm, all LIST orders will be cancelled
on the System and any remaining shares will route to the security's
primary listing market for participation in its closing process.
LIST orders received at or after 3:58 p.m. but before 4:00 p.m. will
check the System for available shares and simultaneously route the
remaining shares[before being sent] to destinations on the System
routing table, and remaining shares will be routed to the security's
primary listing market to participate in its closing process. Shares
unexecuted in the closing process will be posted to the NASDAQ book.
LIST orders received after 4:00 p.m. will be posted to the NASDAQ
book. If trading in the security is stopped across all markets, LIST
orders will be sent to the primary listing market to participate in
the re-opening process. When normal trading resumes, unexecuted
shares will be cancelled off of the primary and posted on the NASDAQ
book. LIST orders may not be designated as MGTC or SGTC.
    (xi) CART is a routing option under which orders route to the
NASDAQ OMX BX Equities Market and NASDAQ OMX PSX and then check the
System. If shares remain un-executed, they are posted to the book or
cancelled. Once on the book, should the order subsequently be locked
or crossed by another market center, the System will not route the
order to the locking or crossing market center.
    Orders that do not check the System for available shares prior
to routing may not be sent to a facility of an exchange that is an
affiliate of Nasdaq, except for orders that are sent to the NASDAQ
OMX BX Equities Market or to the NASDAQ OMX PSX facility of NASDAQ
OMX PHLX.
    (B) No change.
    (b)-(c) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is proposing to amend Rule 4758(a)(1)(A) to reflect a change
in NASDAQ's order routing functionality, which will allow routable
orders \3\ to simultaneously execute against NASDAQ available shares
and route to other markets for execution of the remainder of the order.
Currently, when a routable order is entered into the NASDAQ system, the
NASDAQ book is first checked for available shares. If such an order is
not filled or filled only partially, then the order is routed to away
markets with the best bid or best offer pursuant to NASDAQ's System
routing table.\4\ For example, if a NASDAQ member submitted an order to
buy 5,000 shares of a security, and NASDAQ had 500 shares displayed
with another 500 shares undisplayed, under the current routing process
1,000 shares would be executed on NASDAQ. Thereafter, NASDAQ would
route the remaining 4,000 shares of the order to other markets for
execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this filing, a ``routable order'' is an
order entered into the NASDAQ System, which is not of an Order Type
precluded from routing to other markets.
    \4\ The ``System routing table'' is the proprietary process for
determining the specific trading venues to which the System routes
orders and the order in which it routes them. See Rule
4758(a)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ has observed that upon partial execution of a routable order
at NASDAQ, as in the example above, market participants often react to
the order by cancelling their orders on other markets and entering new
orders at inferior prices. This occurs because the current process
directs the order to NASDAQ before attempting to access available
liquidity at other markets and thereby allows market participants to
react to the execution (an effect known as ``market impact'' or
``information leakage''). As a consequence, the available shares at the
away market are no longer available, resulting in a lower likelihood of
successfully accessing liquidity on away markets (i.e., the ``fill
rate'') and an increased likelihood of ultimately receiving an
execution at an inferior price. As such, NASDAQ is addressing this
problem by changing how the routing process will operate.
    NASDAQ is proposing to execute routable orders against the NASDAQ
book for available shares and to simultaneously route any remaining
shares to additional markets. Specifically, under the proposed change a
routable order would attempt to execute against the available shares at
NASDAQ and, to the extent the order would not be filled by such
available shares, NASDAQ would simultaneously route the remainder of
the order to other venues, according to NASDAQ's System routing table,
in a manner consistent with Regulation NMS (i.e., satisfying all
displayed protected quotes). For example, using the scenario above, if
a member enters a routable order to buy 5,000 shares of a security and
NASDAQ is displaying 500 shares of that security, with 500 undisplayed,
NASDAQ would execute against the 500 displayed shares and 500
undisplayed shares, while

simultaneously routing the remaining 4,000 shares to other venues for
execution. In the event that the amount of shares on other markets is
insufficient to completely fill the order, or the order fails to
completely execute, NASDAQ would then post the remaining shares on the
NASDAQ book or cancel the remaining shares per the routed order's
instructions. NASDAQ believes that this simultaneous execution against
NASDAQ available shares and routing to other venues' shares will avoid
the deleterious effect of market impact discussed above and result in
overall faster and better executions of its members' routable orders.
    NASDAQ notes that it is not changing the execution and routing
sequence of all routable orders. The TFTY, SAVE, SOLV, and CART orders
are designed to execute serially as part of their strategies, which is
generally to reduce the blended fees associated with transacting on
multiple markets. As such, simultaneous routing of such orders would
not result in a better execution in terms of the goals of these
routable order types.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ which requires
the rules of an exchange 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. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule meets these requirements in that it promotes efficiency
in the market, and increases the speed of execution and likelihood that
a routable order will be filled at the best price possible. In this
regard, NASDAQ notes that simultaneous execution minimizes the market
impact a routable order has on the markets under the current multi-step
execution and routing process, thus improving fill rates. Accordingly,
the proposed rule change will serve to improve execution quality for
investors sending their routable orders to NASDAQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall: (a) By order approve
or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b) institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-071 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-071. 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. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-071, and should be submitted on or before
July 20, 2012.

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

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15955 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6110-6111]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2374]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 229 and 249

[Release No. 34-63793; File No. S7-40-10]
RIN 3235-AK84

Conflict Minerals

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is extending the
comment period for a release proposing amendments to its rules to
implement Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. [Release No. 34-63547; 75 FR 80948 (December
23, 2010)]. The original comment period for Release No. 34-63547 is
scheduled to end on January 31, 2011. The Commission is extending the
time period in which to provide the Commission with comments on that
release for 30 days until Wednesday, March 2, 2011. This action will
allow interested persons additional

time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before March 2, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml);
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-40-10 on the subject line; or
     Use the Federal Rulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-40-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/proposed.shtml). Comments
are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-1090, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and
3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not
edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fieldsend, Special Counsel in the
Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-
3430, at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has requested comment on a
release proposing amendments to its rules to implement Section 1502 of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The
proposed rules would affect the annual reporting requirements of
issuers that file reports pursuant to Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') and would
require any such issuer for which conflict minerals are necessary to
the functionality or production of a product manufactured, or
contracted to be manufactured, by that issuer to disclose in the body
of its annual report whether its conflict minerals originated in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo or an adjoining country. If so, that
issuer would be required to furnish a separate report as an exhibit to
its annual report that includes, among other matters, a description of
the measures taken by the issuer to exercise due diligence on the
source and chain of custody of its conflict minerals. These due
diligence measures would include, but would not be limited to, an
independent private sector audit of the issuer's report conducted in
accordance with standards established by the Comptroller General of the
United States. Further, any issuer furnishing such a report would be
required, in that report, to certify that it obtained an independent
private sector audit of its report, provide the audit report, and make
its reports available to the public on its Internet Web site. The
release was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2010.
    The Commission originally requested that comments on the release be
received by January 31, 2011. The nature of the proposed disclosure
requirements differs from the disclosure traditionally required by the
Exchange Act, and the proposal requested comment on a variety of
significant aspects of the proposed rules. The Commission has received
requests for an extension of time for public comment on the proposal
to, among other things, allow for the collection of information and
improve the quality of responses.\1\ The Commission believes that
providing the public additional time to consider thoroughly the matters
addressed by the release and to submit comprehensive responses to the
release would benefit the Commission in its consideration of final
rules. Therefore, the Commission is extending the comment period for
Release No. 34-63547 ``Conflict Minerals'' for 30 days, to Wednesday,
March 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Advanced Medical Technology Association et al.
(Dec. 16, 2010); Representative Spencer Bachus, Chairman, Committee
on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives (Jan. 25,
2011); Department of State (Jan. 25, 2011); Jewelers Vigilance
Committee et al. (Jan. 10, 2011); National Mining Association (Jan.
3, 2011); National Stone, Sand Gravel Association (Jan. 13, 2011);
and World Gold Council (Jan. 7, 2011). Comments are available on the
Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-40-10/s74010.shtml.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

    Dated: January 28, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2374 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 11, 2018
TO: 		Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production NESHAP Docket
      Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0309
SUBJECT:	Cost Impacts of Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production Risk and Technology Review Proposal
Overview
This regulatory action proposes to eliminate the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) exemption included in the 2002 Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), consistent with the United States Court of Appeals decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Eliminating the SSM exemption will remove the requirements and associated burden for SSM plans and periodic SSM reports.
A one-time burden for reviewing requirements of the amended rule has been estimated.

The adjustments described above are expected to result in a total industry-wide annual cost of $200.

Impacts to Affected Entities

To estimate the costs associated with these changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements, information previously developed as part of the Information Collection Request (ICR) process was consulted.

The proposed removal of the SSM exemption would result in the emissions standards in the rule applying at all times. Based on discussions with affected entities, we believe facilities are already operating control technologies during all periods of that wet-formed fiberglass mat is being produced and therefore would incur no costs associated with additional operation of controls. We also proposed to eliminate the requirement for the development of a SSM plan as required under 40 CFR 63.2986(g)(3). The 2002 NESHAP required this plan to be developed by the compliance date of April 11, 2005, for existing sources and April 11, 2002 or startup, for new or reconstructed sources, with no requirement for updates to the plan. Because there is no requirement for updates, no cost savings are estimated for the proposed removal of this provision. All affected facilities are anticipated to experience a small cost savings associated with the proposed removal of recordkeeping and reporting requirements specific to SSM events. Currently, facilities are required to maintain SSM records, as outlined under 40 CFR 63.2998(e)(5) and (f), and report on SSM events under 63.3000(c)(5) (iv) and (vii), and 63.3000(e).

Eight hours have been estimated for affected facilities to read and understand the requirements of the amended rule.

Table 2 below summarizes the ICR renewal burden estimates associated with (1) SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements that this action proposes to eliminate; and (2) review of the amended rule by affected facilities. These figures have been adjusted to reflect seven responding facilities, and updated labor rates have also been used.
Labor rates were updated using the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, survey titled May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States." The rates are from column 8, "Mean hourly wage." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.
Table 1. Wage Rate by Labor Category (2016$)

                               Occupational Code
                       BLS Mean Wage Estimate, in 2016$
                         Loaded Wage (+110%), in 2016$
Technical
                                    51-8090
                                    $30.65
                                    $64.37
Managerial
                                    11-1021
                                    $58.70
                                    $123.27
Clerical
                                    43-6010
                                    $19.39
                                    $40.72

As shown in Table 2, these proposed changes to recordkeeping and reporting requirements are estimated to result in a total industry-wide annual cost of $200.
Table 2. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost (2016$)
                                  Burden Item
                                      (A)
                          Person-Hours per Occurrence
                                      (B)
                  No. of Occurrences per respondent per year
                                      (C)
                         Hours per respondent per year
                                      (D)
                             Respondents per year
                                      (E)
                           Technical Hours per year
                                    (=C*D)
                                      (F)
                           Management Hours per year
                                   (=E*0.05)
                                      (G)
                            Clerical Hours per year
                                   (=E*0.1)
                                      (H)
                                     Cost
                  Startup, shutdown, malfunction report[(a)]
                                      (8)
                                      (2)
                                     (16)
                                      (1)
                                     (16)
                                     (0.8)
                                     (1.6)
                                   ($1,194)
                  Review amended rule requirements [(][b][)]
                                       8
                                       1
                                       8
                                     2.33
                                     18.64
                                     0.93
                                     1.86
                                    $1,390
                             Total Burden and Cost
                                    rounded

                                     3.03
                                       3
                                     $196
                                     $200
 The currently approved ICR assumed that 15 percent of respondents will have a startup, shutdown, or malfunction occur that is not managed according to the regulation. Given that there are now an estimated 7 affected facilities, this results in an estimate of 1 respondent per year.
 There are an estimated 7 respondents.  Estimate assumes that, on average each year, the number of respondents reviewing the amended rule is 2.33 respondents per year (7 / 3) years = 2.33.


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17192]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-427-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

April 7, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission Staff will convene a technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, April 30,
2009, at 9 a.m. (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The issues to be addressed at the technical conference include
those Southern identified as changes to its terms and conditions of
service. These include Southern's proposal to: (1) Modify its general
requirements applicable to the installation or modification of
interconnection facilities; (2) require a shipper that has not used its
point to move its primary receipt point; (3) modify its open season
requirements; (4) allow a shipper and Southern to agree to a prepayment
for services; and (5) modify its ROFR time frames.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further
information please contact Robert McLean at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8453 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 102 (Friday, May 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28922-28923]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11292]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34274; 812-15154]

Simplify Exchange Traded Funds and Simplify Asset Management Inc.

May 24, 2021.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers.

APPLICANTS:  Simplify Exchange Traded Funds (the ``Trust''), a Delaware
statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management
investment company with multiple series, and Simplify Asset Management
Inc., a New York corporation registered as an investment adviser under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Simplify'' or the ``Advisor,''
and, collectively with the Trust, the ``Applicants'').

FILING DATES:  The application was filed on August 18, 2020, and
amended on February 24, 2021.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:  An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 18, 2021, 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 emailing the
Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES:  The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: c/o
JoAnn M. Strasser, Thompson Hine LLP, by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior
Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or 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. The Advisor serves as the investment adviser to the Funds (as
defined below) pursuant to investment advisory agreements with the
Funds (the ``Advisory Agreements'').\1\ The Advisor will provide the
Funds with continuous and comprehensive investment management services
subject to the supervision of, and policies established by, each Fund's
board of trustees (``Board''). The Advisory Agreements permit the
Advisor, subject to the approval of the Board, to delegate to one or
more sub-advisers (each, a ``Subadvisor'' and collectively, the
``Subadvisors'') the responsibility to provide the day-to-day portfolio
investment management of each Fund (either directly or through such
Fund's direct wholly-owned subsidiary), subject to the supervision and
direction of the Advisor. The primary responsibility for managing the
Funds will remain vested in the Advisor. The Advisor will hire,
evaluate, allocate assets to and oversee the Subadvisors, including
determining whether a Subadvisor should be terminated, at all times
subject to the authority of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to any existing or
future series of the Trust and any other registered open-end
management investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised
by Simplify or any entity controlling, controlled by or under common
control with Simplify or its successors (each, also an ``Advisor'');
(b) uses the manager of managers structure described in the
application; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the
application (any such series, a ``Fund''). 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 business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Each Fund may pursue its investment strategies by investing
through a direct wholly-owned subsidiary (each such subsidiary, a
``Subsidiary''). Any future Subsidiary will enter into an investment
advisory agreement with the respective Advisor (the ``Subsidiary
Advisory Agreements'').\2\ In all cases, an Advisor will be the entity
providing general management services to each Fund, including overall
supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of
the Fund's assets (either directly or through such Fund's Subsidiary,
if any), and, subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (a)
Set such Fund's (including, if any, its Subsidiary's) overall
investment strategies; (b) evaluate, select and recommend Subadvisors
to manage all or a portion of the Fund's assets (directly or through
the Fund's Subsidiary, if any); (c)

allocate and, when appropriate, reallocate the Fund's assets among one
or more Subadvisors (including by allocating and reallocating assets
between and among the Fund and, if any, its Subsidiary); (d) monitor
and evaluate the performance of Subadvisors; and (e) implement
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Subadvisors comply
with the investment objective, policies and restrictions of the Fund
and the Subsidiary, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Any future Subsidiary Advisory Agreement will be approved by
the Board, including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons'' (as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act)
of the Fund or the Advisor, and the Fund's shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants request an order exempting Applicants from section
15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 thereunder to permit the Trust, on
behalf of a Fund, and/or its Advisor, subject to the approval of the
Board, to enter into and materially amend investment subadvisory
agreements with Subadvisors (``Subadvisory Agreements'') without
obtaining shareholder approval.\3\ Applicants also seek an exemption
from the Disclosure Requirements to permit a Fund to disclose (as both
a dollar amount and a percentage of the Fund's net assets): (a) The
aggregate fees paid to the Advisor and any Excluded Subadvisor; and (b)
the aggregate fees paid to Subadvisors other than Excluded Subadvisors
(collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). For any Fund that employs
an Excluded Subadvisor, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of
any fees paid to the Excluded Subadvisor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser who
is an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act,
of a Fund or an Advisor other than by reason of serving as a sub-
adviser to one or more Funds (or any Subsidiary) (``Excluded
Subadvisors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Fund shareholders and notification about sub-
advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests
of the Funds' shareholders.
    5. Section 6(c) 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 provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Advisory
Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role
of the Subadvisors is substantially similar to that of individual
portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of
Subadvisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on
the Funds. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the
Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the
Advisor's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Subadvisors that are
more advantageous for the Funds.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11292 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32316-32320]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11456]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0443; FRL-9876-01-R1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most
elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Rhode Island. This revision addresses the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). We are not taking action on three elements of this submittal
in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) that relate to
requirements for the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) program. These will be addressed in a separate action. In
addition, EPA is disapproving the submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H) (future SIP revisions). However, because a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) has been in place for section 110(a)(2)(H)
since 1973, no further action by EPA or the State is required. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective June 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0443. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and
Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that, if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On December 6, 2017, Rhode Island submitted a SIP submission to
address the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act)--including the interstate transport requirements--for the
2012 annual PM2.5 \1\ NAAQS. EPA refers to this type of SIP
submission as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' On February 1, 2019 (84 FR
1025), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing
to approve most elements of the State's infrastructure SIP submission
and to conditionally approve certain other elements of the submission.
The infrastructure SIP requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA for
implementation of the NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is
given in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, often referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    During the comment period, EPA received one set of germane
comments, which addressed two issues: (1) EPA's proposed conditional
approval of certain portions of Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP
submission related to the State's PSD program and (2) the impact on
this infrastructure SIP action of EPA's 2015 Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction (SSM) SIP Action. In that action, EPA found that certain
existing SIP provisions governing periods of SSM in 45 states and local
jurisdictions, including one such provision in Rhode Island's SIP, were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. EPA issued a SIP
call on June 12, 2015, directing those states to submit SIP revisions
to address the specific inadequacies. See 80 FR 33839.
    Regarding the first issue, the commenter stated that a conditional
approval of the PSD-related elements of Rhode Island's December 6,
2017, infrastructure SIP submission is ``not appropriate,'' because the
State had already made a SIP submission to EPA in March 2018 purporting
to address those elements, although EPA had not yet acted on that
submission. The commenter stated that the March 2018 submittal is not
in the docket for this action and that this ``prevent[s] the public
from being able to assess whether it does in fact cure the PSD-related
deficiencies in the December 2 [sic], 2017, submission [and] prevents
the public from being able to fully assess and comment on EPA's
proposed conditional approval.''
    As EPA noted in the NPRM, Rhode Island's SIP lacked certain
provisions \2\ required for EPA to find that the SIP contained a
complete PSD permitting program meeting applicable requirements, which
is required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) and which
are relevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission. The
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's (RIDEM) December
2017 infrastructure SIP submittal acknowledged these deficiencies and
indicated that RIDEM would amend its regulations to address them and
submit revised regulations to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. As EPA also
noted, RIDEM submitted a SIP revision to EPA on March 26, 2018, that
included changes to address the PSD-related deficiencies. We stated in
the NPRM that we were currently reviewing that submittal to verify
whether it resolved the identified infrastructure SIP deficiencies. The
NPRM did not include any substantive assessment of the March 2018
submittal because we had not completed a review of that submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In particular, EPA noted that Rhode Island's SIP did not yet
incorporate: (1) A requirement to identify NOX as a
precursor to ozone in the definition of ``major stationary source''
from EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement
Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review
and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon
Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline,'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005); and (2)
definitional changes required under an EPA rule entitled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration,'' 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010); see 84 FR 1025 at
1027-28 (February 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are not finalizing the proposed conditional
approvals of these PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) for purposes of the infrastructure SIP requirements
of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA acknowledges that the
timing of the proposed conditional approvals was confusing and unusual
given that the State had already made a SIP submission purporting to
satisfy these requirements by the time EPA proposed the conditional
approvals. Therefore, EPA has decided to withdraw the proposed
conditional approvals. EPA will issue a separate proposed rule at a
future date in which EPA will provide an evaluation of whether Rhode
Island's March 2018 SIP satisfies these PSD-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The public will have an opportunity to provide
comments to EPA on this proposed rule.
    Regarding the second issue, the commenter stated that it is
``inappropriate'' for EPA to rely on the ``outsider theory'' in
approving Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submission

for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS where the state has not yet
responded to the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In that action, EPA found that a
provision approved as a part of Rhode Island's existing approved SIP
(25-4-13 R.I. Code R. section 16.2) was substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to Rhode Island to address
the inadequacy. 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). The commenter stated that,
until Rhode Island has corrected its SIP as directed by EPA in the 2015
SSM SIP Action, EPA should either not approve the infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS or should
condition any approval on submission by Rhode Island of a revision
within 12 months that adequately addresses the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 2015 SSM SIP Action referenced in the comment addressed
how provisions in a number of States' SIPs treat excess emissions
during periods of SSM. 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). While the
comment states that Rhode Island must correct SIP ``provisions,''
EPA notes that it issued the SIP Call to Rhode Island with respect
to just one provision. Id. at 33959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA has explained that its review
of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that a
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements for the new or revised
NAAQS. In this context, EPA does not consider it appropriate to review
a state's existing approved SIP for all potential deficiencies in
existing provisions, and thus has excluded certain types of potentially
deficient provisions from this process. EPA considers this approach to
infrastructure SIPs reasonable based on the specific statutory language
of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2). The CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs that allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action. EPA has used
one of these other mechanisms in this instance to address the SSM
deficiency in Rhode Island's SIP.
    EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action included, among other things, a finding
that Rhode Island's SIP contained an insufficiently bounded
``director's discretion'' provision related to emissions during periods
of SSM. See 80 FR 33840-33959. However, in the NPRM for this
infrastructure SIP action, we stated that the rulemaking would ``not
cover three substantive areas that are not integral to acting on a
state's infrastructure SIP submission,'' including ``[e]xisting
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction at sources (``SSM'' emissions) that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions
[and] existing provisions related to `director's variance' or
`director's discretion' that purport to permit revisions to SIP-
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA.''
    In response to the commenter's argument, EPA reiterates its view
that it generally considers existing provisions in these substantive
areas to be outside the scope of its review of a state's infrastructure
SIP submittal. The commenter did not provide any specific argument
based on the statutory language for its assertion that EPA cannot move
forward with finalizing approval of this infrastructure SIP action in
light of EPA's position.
    As EPA explained in the NPRM, see 84 FR 1026 (citing 79 FR 27241 at
24242-45), an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not
the appropriate type of action in which to address deficiencies in a
given state's SIP regarding existing provisions related to excess
emissions from sources during periods of SSM that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions. EPA may
approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the
totality of the existing SIP for such deficient provisions and may
approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing
provisions.\4\ As relevant here, EPA has separate mechanisms for
addressing deficient provisions and has used one of those mechanisms
here by issuing a SIP call to Rhode Island for its problematic SSM
provision. It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's
infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or
implicit re-approval of any existing deficient provisions that relate
to the specific issue just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new
provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal
deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM
events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for
compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the
context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions is
to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. This approach is appropriate because it would not be
reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and
the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring EPA review of each and
every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in
the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the
state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion
over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA
have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical
artifacts.
    These existing provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new or revised
NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission.
A better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those
elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a
specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of the new or revised
NAAQS or other factors. For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler
recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS
pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility.
As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    This approach is also a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission
because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address
specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other
statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action,
depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency.
Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the
Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to
attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to
otherwise comply with the CAA.\5\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to
correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP
submissions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \6\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

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

    Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's
infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to
address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's
subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the
basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For
example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to
eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions
in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, EPA has already taken steps through the SIP Call
mechanism to address the deficiency identified in Rhode Island's SIP
and has taken further steps to ensure that separate process is followed
as envisioned and consistent with legal requirements. Under the 2015
SSM SIP Action, Rhode Island was required to revise its SIP to address
the SSM provision identified as substantially inadequate within 18
months. Rhode Island failed to meet that deadline, so on January 12,
2022, EPA issued a Finding of Failure to Submit (FFS) to Rhode Island.
See 87 FR 1680. If the State has not made the required SIP submittal
within 18 months of the effective date of the FFS, then, pursuant to
CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the 2-to-1 emission offset
sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the State
for all new and modified major sources subject to the nonattainment new
source review program.
    The sanction will not take effect if, within 18 months after the
effective date of the FFS, EPA affirmatively determines that the State
has made a complete SIP submittal addressing the deficiency in
accordance with the 2015 SSM Action. Additionally, a finding that Rhode
Island has failed to submit a required SIP submission triggers an
obligation under CAA section 110(c) for EPA to promulgate a FIP no
later than 2 years after issuance of the FFS. If the State makes the
required SIP submittal and EPA takes final action to approve the
submittal within 2 years of the effective date of the FFS, EPA is not
required to promulgate a FIP.
    Based on the above rationale, we are finalizing the action as
described above.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving most elements of Rhode Island's December 6, 2017,
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is disapproving Rhode Island's infrastructure SIP submission
for section 110(a)(2)(H), for which Federal regulations through a FIP
are already in place. The disapproval with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H) does not start a sanctions clock because the disapproval
relates neither to a submission required under CAA title I part D nor
to one required in response to a SIP call under CAA section 10(k)(5).
No further action by EPA or the State is required with respect to this
disapproval.
    We are finalizing the action as proposed, except that, for the
reasons provided above, we are not finalizing our proposal to
conditionally approve the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J) for the annual 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is withdrawing the proposed conditional
approvals and will address those PSD-related requirements in a separate
action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735; October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821; January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2022.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 22, 2022.
David Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070(e), amend the table by adding an entry for
``Infrastructure SIP and Transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           Rhode Island Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable            State
   Name of non regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/ EPA approved date       Explanations
           provision              nonattainment area   effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure SIP and           Statewide...........       12/6/2017  May 31, 2022,      This submittal is
 Transport SIP for the 2012                                             [Insert Federal    approved with respect
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                           Register           to the following CAA
                                                                        citation].         elements: 110(a)(2)
                                                                                (A); (B); (C); (D) ;
                                                                                (E); (F); (G); (J);
                                                                                (K); (L); and (M),
                                                                                except for certain
                                                                                PSD-related
                                                                                requirements in (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II), and (J).
                                                                                This submittal is
                                                                                disapproved for (H).
                                                                                This approval
                                                                                includes the
                                                                                Transport SIP for the
                                                                                2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
                                                                                which shows that
                                                                                Rhode Island does not
                                                                                significantly
                                                                                contribute to PM2.5
                                                                                nonattainment or
                                                                                maintenance in any
                                                                                other state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec.  52.2077, add paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2077   Identification of plan--conditional approvals and
disapprovals.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP
submitted on December 6, 2017, is disapproved for Clean Air Act element
110(a)(2)(H). A Federal Implantation Plan is already in place at Sec.
52.2080.

[FR Doc. 2022-11456 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47065-47067]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19307]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9712-7]

Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges From Construction Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of corrections to the 2012 Construction General Permit.

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

SUMMARY: EPA previously announced the issuance of the NPDES general
permit for stormwater discharges from construction activity, also
referred to as the 2012 Construction General Permit (2012 CGP), in the
February 29, 2012 Federal Register. Today's action

provides notice of final 2012 CGP issuance for Idaho; Washington (for
projects involving federal operators); the Fond Du Lac Band and Grand
Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota; the Bad River Band
and Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Wisconsin. EPA is
also today providing notice of its correction of typographical errors
made in the 2012 CGP pertaining to New Mexico's state-specific
requirements and the state's list of designated Tier 2 and Tier 3
waters, and a correction to EPA's omission of Idaho's list of
designated Tier 2 and Tier 3 waters.

DATES: The 2012 CGP became effective in Idaho on April 9, 2012; for
federal operators in Washington on April 13, 2012; and for the above-
referenced Tribal areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin on May 9, 2012.
These effective dates provide dischargers with the immediate
opportunity to comply with Clean Water Act requirements in light of the
expiration of the 2008 CGP on February 15, 2012. The 2012 CGP and the
authorization to discharge will expire at midnight on February 16,
2017. Within 90 days of the permit's date of issuance, operators of
existing projects must submit an NOI for coverage under the new permit.
Therefore, for existing projects located in areas in the State of Idaho
(except for Indian country) NOIs must be submitted by no later than
July 8, 2012. For existing projects located in areas in the State of
Washington (except for Indian country) subject to construction activity
by a Federal Operator, NOIs must be submitted by no later than July 12,
2012. For existing projects located in the following areas, NOIs must
be submitted no later than August 7, 2012: The Fond Du Lac Band and
Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota; the Bad
River Band and Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in
Wisconsin. Operators of new projects who elect to be covered under the
2012 CGP are required to submit an NOI for coverage at least 14 days
prior to the commencement of earth-disturbing activities. If a
permitted operator is transferring control of a construction project to
a new operator, the new operator must submit a NOI 14 days prior to the
date of transfer.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, this permit shall be considered
issued for the purpose of judicial review on the date of this
publication. Under section 509(b) of the Clean Water Act, judicial
review of this general permit can be had by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the
permit is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the requirements in this
permit may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings to
enforce these requirements. In addition, this permit may not be
challenged in other agency proceedings. Deadlines for submittal of
notices of intent for projects located in the areas listed above are
provided as part of this action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the CGP,
contact the appropriate EPA Regional office listed in Section I.C, or
you can send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact Greg Schaner
or Erika Farris, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management at tel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?
    C. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this permit?
II. Summary of Permit Actions
    A. Issuance of 2012 CGP for Additional States and Tribes
    B. Correction of Typographical Errors in New Mexico Requirements
    C. Correction to Omission of Idaho's List of Sensitive Waters
III. Compliance With Other Statutes

I. General Information

    EPA summarized the CGP permit conditions, as well as changes from
the previous version of the CGP, in the February 29, 2012, Federal
Register notice.

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The final 2012 construction general permit (also referred to as
``CGP'' or ``2012 CGP'') applies to the following construction
activities:

         Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          North American
                                                             Industry
        Category           Examples of affected entities  Classification
                                                          System (NAICS)
                                                               code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................    Construction site operators disturbing 1 or
                            more acres of land, or less than 1 acre but
                            part of a larger common plan of development
                               or sale if the larger common plan will
                               ultimately disturb 1 acre or more, and
                                performing the following activities:

                          Construction Buildings........             236
                          Heavy and Civil Engineering                237
                           Construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not intend the preceding table to be exhaustive, but
provides it as a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists the types of activities that
EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected.
To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the definition of ``construction activity''
and ``small construction activity'' in existing EPA regulations at 40
CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15), respectively. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult one of the persons listed for technical information in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0782. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Although all documents in the

docket are listed in an index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly
available docket materials are available in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the United States government on-line source for
Federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Electronic versions of this final permit and fact sheet are
available on EPA's NPDES Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through the
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section
I.B.1.

C. Who are the EPA regional contacts?

    For EPA Region 5, contact Brian Bell at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Suzanna Perea at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Margaret McCauley at tel.: (206) 553-
1772 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Summary of Permit Actions

A. Issuance of 2012 CGP for Additional States and Tribes

    On February 16, 2012, EPA issued the 2012 CGP for most of the areas
where EPA is the permitting authority. Because EPA had not yet received
Clean Water Act Section 401 certifications from certain states and
tribes, EPA was not able to issue the final CGP in these areas. The
following states and tribes were affected:
     The State of Idaho;
     Federal operators in Washington;
     The Fond Du Lac Band and Grand Portage Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa in Minnesota; and
     The Bad River, Lac Du Flambeau, and Sokaogon Chippewa
(Mole Lake) Community in Wisconsin.
    Now that EPA has received the required Clean Water Act 401
certifications, the Agency has issued the final 2012 CGP for these
areas, except for the Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) Community in
Wisconsin, who denied certification of the permit. Pursuant to CWA
section 401(d), the limitations and requirements contained in these
certifications are now conditions of the 2012 CGP and are included in
Part 9 of the permit. See Parts 9.3, 9.7.1, and 9.7.3.
    The complete text of the updated 2012 CGP as well as additional
information on Webcasts, Guidance, and Other Implementation Assistance
can be obtained through EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.

B. Correction of Typographical Errors in New Mexico Requirements

    Following the issuance of the 2012 CGP on February 16, 2012, EPA
discovered that a few of the requirements in Part 9.4.1 were
incorrectly transcribed from the State of New Mexico's Section 401
certification conditions. The errors related to EPA's misinterpretation
of a few of the state's site stabilization conditions. Additionally,
EPA learned that the permit's list of New Mexico waterbodies designated
by the state as Tier 2 or Tier 3 for antidegradation purposes (Appendix
F) was inaccurate. As a result of the errors, Appendix F did not
properly inform construction operators of which waters are designated
by the state as Tier 2; construction sites discharging to Tier 2-
designated waters are subject to stricter stabilization and inspection
requirements. See Part 3.3.2. In consultation with the state, EPA has
corrected the errors and included updated requirements in Part 9.4.1
and Appendix F of the permit.

C. Correction to Omission of Idaho's List of Sensitive Waters

    Subsequent to permit issuance, EPA also discovered that it had
erroneously omitted Idaho's list of state Tier 2 and 3 waters (Appendix
F). In consultation with the state, EPA has corrected the omission, and
has updated the Appendix F list to include instructions on how to
determine if particular waters are designated as Tier 2 or 3.

III. Compliance With Other Statutes

    EPA summarized the Agency's compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Executive Orders 12866 and 13563,
Executive Order 12898, and Executive Order 13175 in the February 29,
2012 Federal Register notice. See 77 FR 12292 for more information.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: May 30, 2012.
Michael A. Bussell,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Timothy C. Henry,
Associate Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.
    Dated: May 30, 2012.
William K. Honker, P.E.,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-19307 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P