[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37457-37463]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14755]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0208; FRL-9825-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of four Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions. EPA is approving portions of two
SIP submissions addressing the applicable infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2006 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). These infrastructure 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. EPA is also taking final action to approve two
additional SIP submissions from Missouri, one addressing the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri, and another
addressing the requirements applicable to any board or body which
approves permits or enforcement orders of the CAA, both of which
support requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs. The rationale
for this action is explained in this notice and in more detail in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action, which was published on
April 10, 2013.

DATES: This rule will be effective July 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0208 for
this action. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours
in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Bhesania, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7147; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we refer to EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following:

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Responses to Comments
III. Summary of EPA Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 10, 2013, EPA proposed to approve four Missouri SIP
submissions (78 FR 21281). EPA received the first submission on
February 27, 2007, addressing the infrastructure SIP requirements
relating to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA received the second
submission on December 28, 2009, addressing the infrastructure SIP
requirements relating to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As originally
detailed in the proposed rulemaking, EPA had previously approved
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)--Interstate and international
transport requirements of Missouri's February 27, 2007, SIP submission
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (72 FR 25975, May 8, 2007); and EPA
disapproved section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate and international
transport requirements of Missouri's December 28, 2009, SIP submission
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (76 FR 43156, July 20, 2011).
Therefore, in the April 10, 2013, proposed action, we did not propose
to act on those portions since they have already been acted upon by
EPA. With this final action, we will have acted on both the February
27, 2007, and the December 28, 2009, submissions in their entirety,
excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of today's
rulemaking as identified in section IV of the April 10, 2013, proposed
action for

both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The third submission was received by EPA on September 5, 2012. This
submission revises Missouri's rule in Title 10, Division 10, Chapter
6.060 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR) (10 CSR 10-6.060)
``Construction Permits Required'' to implement certain elements of the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''
rule (75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010). On March 19, 2013, Missouri
amended and clarified its submission so that it no longer included
specific provisions affected by the January 22, 2013, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia court decision which vacated and
remanded the provisions concerning implementation of the
PM2.5 SILs and vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 SMC that were promulgated as part of the October 20,
2010, PM2.5 PSD Rule (Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (filed
December 17, 2010)). In addition, this rule amendment defers the
application of PSD permitting requirements to carbon dioxide emissions
from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources.
    EPA received the fourth submission on August 8, 2012. This
submission addresses the conflict of interest provisions in section 128
of the CAA as it relates to element E of the infrastructure SIP.
    In summary, EPA is taking final action today to approve these four
SIP submissions from Missouri. The first two submissions addressed the
requirements of CAA sections 110 (a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the
1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5. With this final action, we
will have acted on both the 1997 and 2006 submissions in their entirety
excluding those provisions that are not within the scope of the
rulemaking. EPA is also taking final action to approve two additional
SIP submissions from Missouri, one addressing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Missouri as it relates to
PM2.5, unless otherwise noted in EPA's proposed action on
April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21281), and another SIP revision addressing the
requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which support the
requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.
    In today's action, EPA also acknowledges an administrative error in
our April 10, 2013 proposal. Under section V, within EPA's analysis of
the state's submittal for element E related to infrastructure SIP
requirements, we referenced that both sections 643.040.2 and 105.450
were a part of the ``Air Conservation'' chapter of the Missouri Revised
Statutes. Through today's action, EPA acknowledges that section 105.450
is not a part of the ``Air Conservation'' chapter, but instead is a
part of the ``Public Officers and Employees--Miscellaneous Provisions''
chapter of the Missouri Revised Statutes. No changes were made based on
this correction.
    We also note that within the April 10, 2013, proposed rulemaking,
we relied upon a separate direct final action from April 2, 2013,\1\ to
demonstrate that Missouri met all the requirements of element C of the
infrastructure SIP (78 FR at 21286). EPA received no comments on this
direct final action, and therefore this SIP revision became effective
on June 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Operating Permits Program, State of Missouri (78 FR 19602).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Responses to Comments

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened April 10,
2013, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on May 10, 2013. During this period, EPA received three comment
letters: One from a citizen received April 18, 2013; one from the
Sierra Club and Earthjustice received May 10, 2013 (hereinafter
``Sierra Club''); and one from the National Parks Conservation
Association received May 10, 2013 (hereinafter ``NPCA''). All three
letters are available in the docket to today's final rule. The citizen
comment was made in support of EPA's action, and we appreciate the
support for this rulemaking. No changes were made to this final action
based on this comment. The remaining two letters contained some similar
comments, and therefore we have grouped those similar comments into
single comments and responses where appropriate.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club contends that Missouri's infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS do not
meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A). First, the commenter
suggests that the SIP submissions are deficient because the state
relies ``on general, existing statutory and regulatory authority in
lieu of developing specific new requirements tailored to ensure that
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is maintained and enforced.''
Second, the Commenter suggests that certain existing provisions in
Missouri's SIP and relied upon in the SIP submissions may be
insufficiently specific to be enforceable emissions limits. In support
of the latter concern, the Commenter cites the court decision in McEvoy
v. IEI Barge Services, 622 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2010) for the proposition
that ``some (but not all) courts have suggested that only an emissions
limitation that specifically `limits the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions,' can be an `enforceable emission
limitation''' under the CAA. The implication of this comment is that
only an emissions limitation that is sufficiently specific could meet
the legal requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of
enforcement, and thus for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission
as well.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Sierra Club's contention that
Missouri's infrastructure SIP submissions are not approvable with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(A) because they do not contain ``new
requirements'' for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Similarly,
EPA disagrees with the Commenter's view that the existing provisions of
the Missouri SIP are not enforceable emissions limitations for purposes
of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    With respect to the concerns about the reliance on general,
existing statutory and regulatory authority to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) in lieu of developing specific new requirements,
the Sierra Club is incorrect with respect to the scope of what is
germane to an action on an infrastructure SIP. This rulemaking pertains
to EPA's action on infrastructure SIP submissions, which must only
establish that the state's SIP meets the general structural
requirements described in section 110(a)(2)(A) for the NAAQS at issue.
That section states that each implementation plan submitted by a State
under the CAA shall include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act. In the
context of an infrastructure SIP submission, states may establish that
they have sufficient SIP provisions for this purpose through existing
SIP provisions, through newly submitted SIP provisions, or through a
combination of the two.
    The Commenter seems to believe that in the context of an
infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) explicitly requires
that a state adopt all possible new enforceable emission limits,
control measures and other

means developed specifically for attaining and maintaining the new
NAAQS within the state. EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable
interpretation of the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions. Rather, EPA believes that different requirements for SIPs
become due at different times depending on the precise applicable
requirements in the CAA. For example, SIP submissions that may contain
new emissions limitations for purposes of attaining and maintaining the
NAAQS are required pursuant to CAA section 172(b), as part of an
attainment demonstration for areas designated as nonattainment for the
NAAQS. The timing of such an attainment demonstration would be after
promulgation of a NAAQS, after completion of designations, and after
development of the applicable nonattainment plans, i.e., long after the
time when section 110(a)(1) requires an infrastructure SIP submission.
    The Sierra Club comment suggests that EPA should disapprove a
state's infrastructure SIP submission if the state has not already
developed all the substantive emissions limitations that may ultimately
be required for all purposes, such as attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS as part of an attainment plan for a designated nonattainment
area. Instead, for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), and for purposes
of an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes the proper inquiry is
whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements
appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. EPA does not
interpret section 110(a)(2)(A) to require states in an infrastructure
SIP submission to have developed and submitted the full range of
emissions limits that may ultimately be necessary for purposes of
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS within the state. As explained
in the proposal, EPA has concluded that Missouri has adequately
established that it has met basic requirements for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS through the existing SIP provisions identified in the proposal.
    With respect to the Sierra Club's concerns about Missouri's use of
``broad provisions'' in its SIP to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A), EPA has reviewed Missouri's statutes and regulations in
light of the McEvoy court decision noted by the Commenter. EPA
acknowledges the Commenter's concern that SIP provisions must contain
sufficient specificity, so that the regulated community, regulators,
and members of the public can clearly ascertain what is required of
sources, and so that enforcement can occur in the event of violations.
EPA believes that the Court's decision in McEvoy is limited to the
specific facts and circumstances of that case, but nevertheless
reflects what may happen in an enforcement proceeding if a given SIP
provision is ultimately deemed insufficiently specific to be
enforceable. However, based on a review of the provisions at issue, we
conclude that Missouri has sufficiently specific statutory and
regulatory provisions in place to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission.
    As we noted in the proposed rulemaking and as Sierra Club
acknowledges, RsMO section 643.050.1(1)(b) gives the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission the authority to adopt, promulgate, amend and
repeal rules and regulations that establish ``maximum quantities of air
contaminants that may be emitted from any air contaminant source.''
Pursuant to that authority, Missouri has adopted ambient air quality
standards at 10 CSR 10-6.010 that mirror the 1997 PM2.5
annual and 2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS, along with the NAAQS
for other criteria pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
ozone, lead and nitrogen dioxide. The regulations at 10 CSR 10-
6.020(3)(A) provide specific emissions limits for PM2.5 and
other pollutants. See also 10 CSR 10-6.060(11) (providing maximum
allowable increases of particulate matter in Class I, Class II, and
Class III areas in Missouri).
    The regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.030(5) provide specific requirements
for sampling the concentration of particulate matter emissions from
sources; these requirements specifically incorporate by reference the
test methods contained in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A and 40 CFR part
51, appendix M. Furthermore, the regulations at 10 CSR 10-6.040(4)
provide reference methods for determining the concentration of
particulate matter necessary for the enforcement of air pollution
control regulations throughout Missouri. These regulations incorporate
by reference the standards found at 40 CFR part 50.
    EPA also notes that the Missouri air pollution control regulations
contain specific requirements concerning the control of particulate
matter. See, e.g., 10 CSR 10-6.170 (Restriction of Particulate Matter
to the Ambient Air Beyond the Premises of Origin); 10 CSR 10-6.400
(Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter From Industrial
Processes); 10 CSR 10-6.405 (Restriction of Particulate Matter
Emissions From Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating).
    Furthermore, Missouri's regulations require that operating permits
issued to sources contain specific ``emissions limitations or standards
applicable to the installation'' and ``operational requirements or
limitations as necessary to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements.'' 10 CSR 10-6.065(6)(C)1. Thus, in addition to the
emission limitations applicable to sources through the generally
applicable provisions of the SIP, sources that are required to obtain
permits will have additional legally enforceable requirements to meet
specific emission limitations, control measures, or other restrictions
as appropriate.
    Coupled with the enforcement authority provided by Missouri's
statutes and regulations, which provides MDNR the authority to issue
compliance orders or assess administrative penalties for violations of
any emissions limitations of the SIP, EPA continues to believe that
Missouri has sufficient authority to address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 2: The Sierra Club and NPCA commented that emission
reductions from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) are not permanent
and enforceable and therefore EPA cannot rely on CAIR to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4. Sierra Club
argued that in light of the remand of the rule by the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals in North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir.
2008), CAIR is neither permanent nor enforceable. Sierra Club also
states that EPA has acknowledged in other Federal Register notices that
CAIR was remanded without vacatur, was only temporary and could not be
relied on as permanent and enforceable emission reductions for SIP
approval purposes. Sierra Club also states that the Court's decision in
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
does not extend the life of CAIR and does not make CAIR a permanent and
enforceable measure on which the state or EPA can rely. Therefore, the
commenters state that EPA should disapprove this sub-element of
Missouri's SIP.
    Response 2: EPA agrees that all control measures in a SIP must be
enforceable based on the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA
disagrees, however, that CAIR is not enforceable at this time, given
the scope of the court's order in EME Homer City and the issuance of
the mandate in that case.

    On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from
electric generating units (EGUs) to limit the interstate transport of
these pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form
secondarily in the atmosphere (76 FR 70093). The D.C. Circuit initially
vacated CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but
ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the
environmental benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the Court's decision,
EPA issued the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address the
interstate transport of NOX and SO2 in the
eastern United States (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). On August 21,
2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating CSAPR, EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7.\2\ In that decision, it also ordered EPA
to continue administering CAIR, ``pending . . . development of a valid
replacement rule'' (Id. at 38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On March 29, 2013, EPA and other parties filed petitions
seeking Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direction from the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that
the reductions associated with CAIR will be enforceable and in place
for a number of years. EPA has been ordered by the court to develop a
new rule and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating the new
rule, EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs
to implement that rule. CAIR thus will remain in force until EPA has
promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment rulemaking
process, states have had an opportunity to draft and submit SIPs, EPA
has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be approved, and EPA has
taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) if appropriate. In the meantime, neither the
State nor EPA has taken any final action to remove the CAIR
requirements from the Missouri SIP. These SIP provisions remain in
place and are Federally enforceable.
    Further, in vacating CSAPR and requiring EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years'' (EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38). The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of the states who reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR to meet the requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule and, in turn, the requirements of Prong 4 of section
110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    The proposed and final EPA actions cited by the Commenter as
support for its argument that EPA has considered CAIR to be temporary
all pre-date the vacatur of CSAPR and were based on EPA's expectation
that CSAPR would be the replacement for CAIR, and thus CAIR would end
soon.\3\ At the time of these actions, CAIR was reasonably expected to
sunset by operation of law in a fairly short timeframe. That background
assumption no longer applies. Based on the vacatur of CSAPR and the
Court's related decision to keep CAIR in place, EPA believes that it is
appropriate at this time to rely on CAIR emission reductions as
permanent and enforceable SIP measures while a valid replacement rule
is developed and until implementation plans complying with any such new
rule are submitted by the States and acted upon by EPA or until the EME
Homer City case is resolved in a way that provides different direction
regarding CAIR and CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion to
vacate CSAPR and keep CAIR in place pending promulgation of a valid
replacement rule. However, the court also ordered the Clerk to
withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after disposition
of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. All
petitions for rehearing were denied on January 24, 2013, and the
mandate was issued by the D.C. Circuit on February 4, 2013. As noted
above, EPA and other parties subsequently filed petitions seeking
Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is taking final action to approve the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to prong 4 because Missouri's regional haze
SIP, to which EPA has given limited approval in combination with its
SIP provisions to implement CAIR, adequately prevents sources in
Missouri from interfering with measures adopted by other states to
protect visibility during the first planning period. While EPA is not
at this time proposing to change the June 7, 2012, or June 26, 2012,
limited disapproval and limited approval of Missouri's regional haze
SIP, EPA expects to propose appropriate action regarding this SIP, if
necessary, upon final resolution of the EME Homer City litigation. A
more detailed rationale to support EPA's approval of prong 4 for
Missouri's 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure submission can
be found in EPA's proposed rulemaking for today's final action (78 FR
21281).
    Comment 3: The NPCA commented that EPA cannot approve portions of
the Missouri infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility because
these submittals rely on CAIR, and CAIR cannot meet the BART or
reasonable progress requirements of the visibility program. NPCA argues
that to meet the requirements of the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA must direct Missouri to develop an
implementation plan that meets the BART and reasonable progress
requirements of the regional haze rule. In particular, NPCA raised a
number of legal arguments in support of its position that section 169A
of the CAA requires source-specific BART determinations for power
plants and does not allow states to adopt alternative programs, such as
CAIR, in lieu of these source-specific requirements. The NPCA also
stated that CAIR cannot be used to shield sources from review under the
CAA's reasonable progress requirements. NPCA commented that in the
absence of a source-specific review to determine reasonable progress
measures, it is not possible to determine whether CAIR will fulfill the
reasonable progress requirements, assuming it could overcome the lack
of enforceability of the program.
    Response 3: The visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) of the
CAA requires SIPs to ``contain adequate provisions . . . prohibiting .
. . any source . . . within the state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts which will . . . interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State
under part C of this subchapter . . . to protect visibility.'' We
interpret this provision of section 110 of the CAA as requiring states
to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would
interfere with the reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I
areas in other states. This is consistent with the requirements in the
regional haze program which explicitly require each state to address
its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for surrounding Class I areas (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i);
see also 77 FR 11958, 11962, February 28, 2012). Given this explicit
requirement in the regional haze rule, states may satisfy the
visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(II) through an EPA-approved
regional haze SIP. EPA issued a limited approval of Missouri's regional
haze plan on June 26, 2012, having determined, among other things, that
the SIP submittal provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its
long-term strategy includes all measures necessary to obtain its share
of emission reductions needed to address the

impacts of Missouri's emissions sources on Class I areas in other
states (77 FR 38007, 38009).
    In its comments, however, NPCA argues that important elements of
Missouri's approved regional haze SIP do not meet the requirements of
section 169A of the CAA. EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the CAA
does not allow states to rely on an alternative program such as CAIR in
lieu of source-specific BART. EPA's regulations allowing states to
adopt alternatives to BART that provide for greater reasonable
progress, and the Agency's determination that states may rely on CAIR
to meet the BART requirements, have been upheld by the D.C. Circuit,
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006) as
meeting the requirements of the CAA. We also note that the regional
haze regulations do not require a source-specific analysis of controls
for reasonable progress. Even assuming, however, that the Missouri
regional haze SIP improperly relied on CAIR to meet the BART and
reasonable progress requirements, the NPCA has not shown that the
State's plan does not comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

III. Summary of Final Action

    Based upon review of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and relevant statutory and
regulatory authorities and provisions referenced in those submissions
or referenced in Missouri's SIP, EPA believes that Missouri has the
infrastructure to address all applicable required elements of sections
110(a)(1) and(2) (except otherwise noted) to ensure that the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented in the state. Therefore,
EPA is taking final action to approve Missouri's infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 for the
following section 110(a)(2) elements and sub-elements: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II) (prongs 3 and 4), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). In addition, EPA is approving two SIP submissions, one
addressing the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in
Missouri as it relates to PM2.5, and another SIP revision
addressing the requirements of section 128 of the CAA, both of which
support the requirements associated with infrastructure SIPs.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 20, 2013. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2013.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding a new Chapter 1
heading in numerical order, adding a new entry 10-1.020 (1) and (2),
and revising the entry for 10-6.060.
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding new entries (58),
(59) and (60) in numerical order at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
        Missouri citation                Title          effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
                                             Chapter 1--Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-1.020 (1) and (2)............  Commission Voting      7/30/1998  6/21/2013 [INSERT    .......................
                                   and Meeting                       Federal Register
                                   Procedures.                       PAGE NUMBER WHERE
                                                                     THE DOCUMENT
                                                                     BEGINS].

                                                  * * * * * * *
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060........................  Construction           9/30/2012  6/21/2013 [INSERT    Provisions of the 2010
                                   Permits Required.                 Federal Register     PM2.5 PSD--Increments,
                                                                     PAGE NUMBER WHERE    SILs and SMCs rule (75
                                                                     THE DOCUMENT         FR 64865, October 20,
                                                                     BEGINS].             2010) relating to SILs
                                                                                and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the
                                                                                January 22, 2013 U.S.
                                                                                Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                Provisions of the 2002
                                                                                NSR reform rule
                                                                                relating to the Clean
                                                                                Unit Exemption,
                                                                                Pollution Control
                                                                                Projects, and
                                                                                exemption from
                                                                                recordkeeping
                                                                                provisions for certain
                                                                                sources using the
                                                                                actual-to-projected-
                                                                                actual emissions
                                                                                projections test are
                                                                                not SIP approved.
                                                                                In addition, we have
                                                                                not approved
                                                                                Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's
                                                                                2007 revision of the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``chemical processing
                                                                                plants'' (the
                                                                                ``Ethanol Rule,'' 72
                                                                                FR 24060 (May 1, 2007)
                                                                                or EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions
                                                                                rule,'' 73 FR 77882
                                                                                (December 19, 2008).
                                                                                Although exemptions
                                                                                previously listed in
                                                                                10 CSR 10-6.060 have
                                                                                been transferred to 10
                                                                                CSR 10-6.061, the
                                                                                Federally-approved SIP
                                                                                continues to include
                                                                                the following
                                                                                exemption, ``Livestock
                                                                                and livestock handling
                                                                                systems from which the
                                                                                only potential
                                                                                contaminant is odorous
                                                                                gas.''
                                                                                Section 9, pertaining
                                                                                to hazardous air
                                                                                pollutants, is not SIP
                                                                                approved.

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

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                               EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic        State
            revision              or nonattainment area   submittal date   EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(58) Section 110(a)(2)           Statewide..............       2/27/2007  6/21/2013 [INSERT   This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               CITATION OF         addresses the
 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                 PUBLICATION].       following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) prongs
                                                                                3 and 4, (D)(ii),
                                                                                (E), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).
(59) Section 110(a)(2)           Statewide..............      12/28/2009  6/21/2013 [INSERT   This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                                               CITATION OF         addresses the
 for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                 PUBLICATION].       following CAA
                                                                                elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                                (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) prongs
                                                                                3 and 4, (D)(ii),
                                                                                (E), (F), (G),
                                                                                (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).

(60) Section 128 Declaration:    Statewide..............       8/08/2012  6/21/2013 [INSERT   ..................
 Missouri Air Conservation                                                 CITATION OF
 Commission Representation and                                             PUBLICATION].
 Conflicts of Interest
 Provisions; Missouri Revised
 Statutes (RSMo) RSMo 105.450,
 RSMo 105.452, RSMo 105.454,
 RSMo 105.462, RSMo 105.463,
 RSMo 105.466, RSMo 105.472,
 and RSMo 643.040.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-14755 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73923-73924]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0422; FRL-9759-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; The 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the
Charleston Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the
West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of West Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP), on November 4, 2009. The emissions
inventory is part of the November 4, 2009 SIP revision that was
submitted to meet nonattainment requirements for the Charleston, West
Virginia nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the Charleston
Area) for the 1997 PM2.5 national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving the 2002 base year PM2.5
emissions inventory in accordance with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0422. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE.,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60094), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia for the
Charleston Area. The NPR proposed approval of the PM2.5 2002
base year emissions inventory portion of the West Virginia SIP revision
for the Charleston Area. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the
State of West Virginia on November 4, 2009.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The PM2.5 2002 base year emissions inventory submitted
by WVDEP on November 4, 2009 for the Charleston Area includes emissions
estimates that cover the general source categories of point sources,
non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and
biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are
nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
PM2.5, coarse particles (PM10), ammonia
(NH3) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). WVDEP selected
the year 2002 as the base year for the emissions inventory per 40 CFR
51.1008(b). A discussion of the emissions inventory development as well
as the emissions inventory for the Charleston Area can be found in
Appendices C and D of the November 4, 2009 SIP submittal.
    EPA has reviewed the results, procedures and methodologies for the
base year emissions inventory submitted by WVDEP. EPA's evaluation can
be found in the Technical Support Document dated August 12, 2010,
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2012-
0422. EPA found that the process used to develop this emissions
inventory for the Charleston Area is adequate to meet the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3), the implementing regulations, and EPA
guidance for emission inventories.
    Specific requirements of the base year inventory and the rationale
for EPA's action are explained in the NPR and will not be restated
here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 2002 base year PM2.5 emissions
inventory for the Charleston Area as a revision to the West Virginia
SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 February 11, 2013. 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 pertaining to the PM2.5 2002 base year
emissions inventory for the Charleston Area 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 27, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 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 XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding at
the end of the table an entry for 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

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

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory  Charleston, WV-1997           11/4/09  12/13/12 [Insert page number where the
 for the 1997 fine particulate       PM2.5 nonattainment                    document begins].
 matter (PM2.5) standard.            area (Kanawha and
                                     Putnam Counties).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2531 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2531  Base year emissions inventory.

* * * * *
    (d) EPA approves as a revision to the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan the 2002 base year emissions inventory for the
Charleston, WV fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area submitted by the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection on November 4, 2009. The 2002 base year emissions inventory
includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories
of point sources, non-road mobile sources, area sources, on-road mobile
sources, and biogenic sources. The pollutants that comprise the
inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), PM2.5, coarse particles (PM10),
ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

[FR Doc. 2012-29895 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 647-650]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90820; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the
Expiration Date of the Temporary Amendments to Rules 10.9261 and
10.9830 as Set Forth in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 From December 31, 2020, to
April 30, 2021

December 30, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\
notice is hereby given that on December 22, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes extending the expiration date of the
temporary amendments to Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 as set forth in SR-
NYSEArca-2020-85 from December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021, in
conformity with recent changes by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''). The proposed rule change would not make
any changes to the text of NYSE Arca Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes extending the expiration date of the
temporary amendments in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 \4\ to Rules 10.9261
(Evidence and Procedure in Hearing) and 10.9830 (Hearing) from December
31, 2020, to April 30, 2021 to harmonize with recent changes by FINRA
to extend the expiration date of the temporary amendments to its Rules
9261 and 9830. SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 temporarily granted to the Chief or
Deputy Chief Hearing Officer the authority to order that hearings be
conducted by video conference if warranted by public health risks posed
by in-person hearings during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The
proposed rule change would not make any changes to the text of Exchange
Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90088 (October 5,
2020), 85 FR 64186 (October 9, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-85) (``SR-
NYSEArca-2020-85'').
    \5\ The Exchange may submit a separate rule filing to extend the
expiration date of the proposed extension beyond April 30, 2021 if
the Exchange requires additional temporary relief from the rule
requirements identified in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85. The amended NYSE
Arca rules will revert back to their original state at the
conclusion of the temporary relief period and any extension thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2019, NYSE Arca adopted disciplinary rules based on the text of
the Rule 8000 and Rule 9000 Series of its affiliate NYSE American LLC
(``NYSE American''), with certain changes. The NYSE American
disciplinary rules are, in turn, substantially the same as the Rule
8000 Series and Rule 9000 Series of FINRA and the New York Stock
Exchange LLC.\6\ The NYSE Arca disciplinary rules were implemented on
May 27, 2019.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85639 (April 12,
2019), 84 FR 16346 (April 18, 2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-15) (``2019
Notice'').
    \7\ See NYSE Arca Equities RB-19-060 & NYSE Arca Options RB-19-
02 (April 26, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting disciplinary rules modeled on FINRA's rules, NYSE Arca
adopted the hearing and evidentiary processes set forth in Rule 10.9261
and in Rule 10.9830 for hearings in matters involving temporary and
permanent cease and desist orders under the Rule 10.9800 Series. As
adopted, the text of Rule 10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 are

substantially the same as the FINRA rules with certain
modifications.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 2019 Notice, 84 FR at 16365 & 16373-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the spread of COVID-19, on August 31, 2020, FINRA
filed with the Commission a proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness, SR-FINRA-2020-027, to temporarily grant FINRA's Office
of Hearing Officers (``OHO'') and the National Adjudicatory Council
(``NAC'') the authority to conduct certain hearings by video
conference, if warranted by the current COVID-19-related public health
risks posed by in-person hearings. Among the rules FINRA amended were
Rules 9261 and 9830.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89737 (September 2,
2020), 85 FR 55712 (September 9, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-027) (the
``August 31 FINRA Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that FINRA and OHO administers disciplinary hearings on the
Exchange's behalf, and that the public health concerns addressed by
FINRA's amendments apply equally to Exchange disciplinary hearings, on
September 23, 2020, the Exchange filed to temporarily amend Rule
10.9261 and Rule 10.9830 to permit FINRA to conduct virtual hearings on
its behalf.\10\ The temporary amendments to Rule 10.9261 and Rule
10.9830, as originally proposed, will expire on December 31, 2020,
absent another proposed rule change filing by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COVID-19 conditions necessitating these temporary amendments
persist, with cases rapidly escalating nationwide. Based on its
assessment of current COVID-19 conditions and the lack of certainty as
to when COVID-19-related health concerns will subside, on December 1,
2020, FINRA filed to extend the expiration date of the temporary rule
amendments to, among other rules, FINRA Rule 9261 and 9830 from
December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90619 (December 9,
2020), 85 FR 81250 (December 15, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-042) (``SR-
FINRA-2020-042'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Consistent with FINRA's recent proposal, the Exchange proposes to
extend the expiration date of the temporary rule amendments to NYSE
Arca Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 as set forth in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 from
December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021.
    As set forth in SR-FINRA-2020-042, based on its assessment of
current COVID-19 conditions, including the recent escalation in COVID-
19 cases nationwide, FINRA does not believe that the COVID-19-related
health concerns necessitating this relief will subside by December 31,
2020, and has determined that there will be a continued need for this
temporary relief for several months beyond December 31, 2020.\12\ FINRA
accordingly proposed to extend the expiration date of the temporary
rule amendments in the August 31 FINRA Filing from December 31, 2020,
to April 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to similarly extend the expiration date of
the temporary rule amendments to NYSE Arca Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 as
set forth in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 from December 31, 2020, to April 30,
2021. With COVID-19 cases surging nationwide, the Exchange agrees with
FINRA that the COVID-19-related public health risks necessitating this
temporary relief have not yet abated and are unlikely to abate by
December 31, 2020. The proposed change will permit OHO to continue to
assess, based on critical COVID-19 data and criteria and the guidance
of health and security consultants, whether an in-person hearing would
compromise the health and safety of the hearing participants such that
the hearing should proceed by video conference. FINRA has adopted a
detailed and thorough protocol to ensure that hearings conducted by
video conference will maintain fair process for the parties.\13\ The
Exchange believes that this is a reasonable procedure to continue to
follow for hearings under Rules 10.9261 and 10.9830 chaired by a FINRA
employee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See SR-FINRA-2020-042, 85 FR at 81251-52; August 31 FINRA
Filing, 85 FR at 55713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted below, the Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the
requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, so the Exchange can implement the
proposed rule change immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\15\ in particular, because it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes
the proposed rule change is designed to provide a fair procedure for
the disciplining of members and persons associated with members,
consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change supports the
objectives of the Act by providing greater harmonization between
Exchange rules and FINRA rules of similar purpose, resulting in less
burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance. As such, the
proposed rule change will foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
    The proposed rule change, which extends the expiration date of the
temporary amendments to Exchange rules consistent with FINRA's
extension to its Rules 9261 and 9830 for four months as set forth in
SR-FINRA-2020-042, will permit the Exchange to continue to effectively
conduct hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic in situations where in-
person hearings present likely public health risks. The ability to
conduct hearings by video conference will permit the adjudicatory
functions of the Exchange's disciplinary rules to continue unabated,
thereby avoiding protracted delays. The Exchange believes that this is
especially important in matters where temporary and permanent cease and
desist orders are sought because the proposed rule change would enable
those hearings to continue to proceed without delay, thereby enabling
the Exchange to continue to take immediate action to stop significant,
ongoing customer harm, to the benefit of the investing public.
    As set forth in detail in the SR-NYSEArca-2020-85, the temporary
relief to permit hearings to be conducted via video conference
maintains fair process and will continue to provide fair process
consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d) of the Act \17\ while
striking an appropriate balance between providing fair process and
enabling the Exchange to fulfill its statutory obligations to protect
investors and maintain fair and orderly markets while accounting for
the significant health and safety risks of in-person hearings stemming
from the outbreak of COVID-

19. The Exchange notes that this proposal, like SR-NYSEArca-2020-85,
provides only temporary relief. As proposed, the changes would be in
place through April 30, 2021. As noted in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85 and
above, the amended rules will revert back to their original state at
the conclusion of the temporary relief period and, if applicable, any
extension thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the proposed rule change extending this temporary
relief is in the public interest and consistent with the Act's purpose.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed temporary rule
change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but is rather
intended solely to provide continued temporary relief given the impacts
of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related health and safety risks of
conducting in-person activities. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change will prevent unnecessary disruptions that would
otherwise result if the temporary amendments were to expire on December
31, 2020.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \18\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule
change may become operative immediately upon filing. As noted above,
the Exchange states that the COVID-related health and safety risks of
conducting in-person activities, which necessitated these temporary
amendments, persist and that cases are escalating nationwide. Based on
FINRA's assessment of the current COVID-19 conditions and FINRA's
determination that there is a continued need for this temporary relief
for several months beyond December 31, 2020, the Exchange states that
it agrees with FINRA that the COVID-19-related public health risks
necessitating this temporary relief have not yet abated and are
unlikely to abate by December 31, 2020.\20\ Moreover, the Exchange
states that FINRA has adopted a detailed and thorough protocol to
ensure that hearings conducted by video conference will provide a fair
process for all parties and will enable the Exchange to fulfill its
statutory obligations to protect investors and maintain fair and
orderly markets.\21\ The Exchange believes that this is a reasonable
procedure to continue to follow for hearings under Rules 10.9261 and
10.9830 chaired by a FINRA employee. Accordingly, the Exchange states
that waiver of the operative delay would prevent unnecessary
disruptions that would otherwise result if the temporary amendments
were to expire on December 31, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SR-FINRA-2020-042.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also indicates that this filing is eligible to become
operative immediately because the proposal would continue to provide
greater harmonization between the Exchange rules and FINRA rules that
serve a similar purpose, resulting in less burdensome and more
efficient regulatory compliance. This proposal would serve to extend
the expiration date of the temporary amendments to the Exchange rules
set forth in SR-NYSEArca-2020-85, which is consistent with FINRA's
extension to its comparable rules, where FINRA requested and the
Commission granted a waiver of the 30-day operative delay.\22\ The
Exchange also states that this temporary relief is necessary in order
to continue performing adjudicatory functions necessary to meet its
statutory obligations in light of COVID-19 related health and safety
risks associated with in-person hearings and will only be temporary
relief, with the rules reverting back to their original state at the
conclusion of the relief period and any extension thereof.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 11 (referencing FINRA's proposal to extend
the expiration date of temporary rule amendments allowing hearings
to be conducted on a temporary basis by video conference if
warranted by COVID-19 related health risks).
    \23\ See supra note 5 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission observes that this proposal, like SR-NYSEArca-2020-
85 and FINRA's comparable filing,\24\ provides only temporary relief
during the period in which the Exchange's operations are impacted by
COVID-19. As proposed, the changes would be in place through April 30,
2021. For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-
day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-
day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra notes 9 and 11 and accompanying text.
    \25\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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-NYSEArca-2020-116 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-NYSEArca-2020-116. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, on business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., located at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549. 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-116 and should
be submitted on or before February 22, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-29211 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities

Committee (FRRCC)

WEBINAR AGENDA

January 17, 2013

2 – 4 pm EDT

2:00 pm	Call to Order

Mark Joyce, Associate Director, OFACMO

2:05 pm	Opening Remarks

John Reeder, Deputy Chief of Staff, OA

2:10		Welcoming Remarks

Steven Balling, FRRCC Chair

2:20	SAB Reactive Nitrogen Report: Presentation and Discussion

Otto Doering, Agricultural Economist, Purdue University

3:00	National Water Quality Initiative: Presentation and Discussion

Lynda Hall, Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, EPA Office of Water

Tom Christensen, Regional Conservationist, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

3:40 	Public Comments

3:50	Discussion of Next Steps

4:00	Adjourn

Updated   DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy h:mm am/pm"  1/15/2013 5:09 PM


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7391-7392]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02764]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31986; File No. 812-14505]

Good Hill Partners LP and Good Hill ETF Trust; Notice of
Application

February 5, 2016.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice of an application for an order under section
12(d)(1)(J) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an
exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act and under
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections
17(a)(1) and (2) of the Act. The requested order would permit certain
registered open-end investment companies to acquire shares of certain
registered open-end investment companies, registered closed-end
investment companies, business development companies, as defined in
section 2(a)(48) of the Act, and unit investment trusts (collectively,
``Underlying Funds'') that are within and outside the same group of
investment companies as the acquiring investment companies, in excess
of the limits in section 12(d)(1) of the Act.

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

Applicants:  Good Hill ETF Trust, a Massachusetts business trust that
intends to register under the Act as an open-end management investment
company with multiple series and Good Hill Partners LP, a Delaware
limited partnership registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Filing Dates:  The application was filed on June 30, 2015 and amended
on October 16, 2015.

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 March 1, 2016 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 William Hauf,
Good Hill Partners LP, 1599 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut
06880.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6817, or James M. Curtis, 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 for 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 to permit (a) a Fund \1\ (each a
``Fund of Funds'') to acquire shares of Underlying Funds \2\ in excess
of the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (C) of the Act and (b) the
Underlying Funds that are registered open-end investment companies or
series thereof, their principal underwriters and any broker or dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to sell shares of
the Underlying Fund to the Fund of Funds in excess of the limits in
section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act.\3\ Applicants also request an order of
exemption under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act from the prohibition
on certain affiliated transactions in section 17(a) of the Act to the
extent necessary to permit the Underlying Funds to sell their shares
to, and redeem their shares from, the Funds of Funds.\4\ Applicants
state that such transactions will be consistent with the policies of
each Fund of Funds and each Underlying Fund and with the general
purposes of the Act and will be based on the net asset values of the
Underlying Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to each existing and
future series of Good Hill ETF Trust and to each existing and future
registered open-end investment company or series thereof that is
advised by Good Hill Partners LP or its successor or by any entity
controlling, controlled by or under common control with Good Hill
Partners LP or its successor and is part of the same ``group of
investment companies'' as Good Hill ETF Trust (each, a ``Fund'').
For purposes of the requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an
entity that results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization. For purposes of
the request for relief, the term ``group of investment companies''
means any two or more investment companies, including closed-end
investment companies and business development companies, that hold
themselves out to investors as related companies for purposes of
investment and investor services.
    \2\ Certain of the Underlying Funds have obtained exemptions
from the Commission necessary to permit their shares to be listed
and traded on a national securities exchange at negotiated prices
and, accordingly, to operate as an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'').
    \3\ Applicants represent that a Funds of Funds will not invest
in reliance on the order in business development companies or
closed-end investment companies that are not listed and traded on a
national securities exchange.
    \4\ A Fund of Funds generally would purchase and sell shares of
an Underlying Fund that operates as an ETF through secondary market
transactions rather than through principal transactions with the
Underlying Fund. Applicants nevertheless request relief from section
17(a) to permit a Fund of Funds to purchase or redeem shares from
the ETF. A Fund of Funds will purchase and sell shares of an
Underlying Fund that is a closed-end fund through secondary market
transactions at market prices rather than through principal
transactions with the closed-end fund. Accordingly, applicants are
not requesting section 17(a) relief with respect to transactions in
shares of closed-end funds (including business development
companies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. 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 are designed to, among other things, help
prevent any potential (i) undue influence over an Underlying Fund that
is not in the same ``group of investment companies'' as the Fund of
Funds through control or voting power, or in connection with certain
services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of
fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns
underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act.
    3. 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. 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.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02764 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


The Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry Applying Aluminum Parts --

Leachable Acrylamide Data – Method 8023 A

GM Pontiac

	P1	19-Mar-03

	P2	19-Mar-03

	P3	19-Mar-03

	P4	19-Mar-03

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	J   0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

GM Hamtramck

H1-1	19-Mar-03	H1-2	19-Mar-03	H1-3	19-Mar-03	H1-4	19-Mar-03

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

GM Flint

	FT-1	20-Mar-03	FT-2	20-Mar-03	FT-3	20-Mar-03	FT-4	20-Mar-03

	FT-7

Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0004

GM Lansing Grand River

LGR-1	20-Mar-03

LGR-2	20-Mar-03

LGR-3	20-Mar-03

LGR-4	20-Mar-03	LGR-BD	20-Mar-03

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

	ND	0.0007

Ford Wixom

Old Material - East Gandola (dup) 1	New Material - East Gandola 1	New Material - West Gandola 2

New Material - West Gandola 2

Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	Ford Wayne

New Material - West Gandola 	New Material - East Gandola	Old Material - East Gandola

Old Material - East Gandola (dup)

	6-Mar-03

	###

	6-Mar-03

6-Mar-03

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Leachate	TCLP

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	Detected	DL

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	mg/L	mg/L

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004

	ND	0.0004