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

    \295\ It would also be in line with the level at which filing as
a passive investor is no longer permitted on Schedule 13G under
Regulation 13D-G. See 17 CFR 230.13d-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, determining whether a securityholder is covered
based on ownership of voting securities, calculating ownership based on
voting power across all outstanding securities rather than a single
class and raising the threshold from 10% to 20% could reduce investor
protection benefits, as securityholders whose ownership does not meet
the threshold provided in the final rule, but who exercise control of
an issuer, would not be covered. The inclusion of directors, officers
and their functional equivalents under the definition of covered
persons, however, may mitigate this effect; the rule will cover
investors who serve those functions in relation to the issuer,
regardless of their level of ownership.
    With respect to 20% beneficial owners that are subject to
triggering events, issuers may incur costs to buy out or otherwise
induce such persons to reduce their ownership positions. Issuers may
also incur costs in connection with taking steps to prevent bad actors
from becoming 20% beneficial owners, such as exercising rights of first
refusal and excluding bad actors from financing rounds. For certain
issuers, finding investors to replace the capital represented by these
shareholders or potential investors, as the case may be, could be
challenging and expensive. Some commenters also expressed concerns
about the aggregate costs of the proposed bad actor rule, saying that
its provisions are generally unduly complex, unclear or not based on
objective, bright-line standards.\296\ Others expressed concerns about
the potential burdens on capital raising,\297\ and that it could
undermine the overall utility of Rule 506.\298\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ See comment letters from ABA Fed. Reg. Comm.; NYCBA;
Cleary Gottlieb.
    \297\ See comment letters from B. Nelson; Coy Capital; Five
Firms; S&C.
    \298\ See Angel Capital Comment Letter 1; see also comment
letters from ABA Fed. Reg. Comm.; Karr Tuttle; SIFMA; S&C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issuers may also incur costs in connection with seeking waivers of
disqualification from the Commission, or determinations by other
authorities (such as state securities regulators) that their orders
should not give rise to disqualification under Rule 506(d).
    The new disqualification standards may also impose costs on other
market participants that are subject to triggering events, such as
financial intermediaries, by making them ineligible to participate in
the market for Rule 506 offerings. For affected individuals, this may
result in demotion or termination of employment, limitations on career
advancement and fewer employment opportunities generally. For affected
firms, this may result in revenue reductions and loss of market share,
and could threaten the continued operation of firms that are heavily
dependent on Rule 506 offerings as a source of revenue. Firms that are
not themselves disqualified but whose officers, directors, general
partners and managing members are subject to disqualifying events may
incur additional costs from terminating or reassigning such individuals
and from hiring new personnel or retraining existing personnel to
replace them.
    Bad actor disqualification rules may also impose costs on issuers
and other market participants beyond the context of Rule 506 offerings.
For example, imposing a new disqualification standard only on offerings
under Rule 506, rather than on a more uniform basis, may result in
higher costs for issuers relying on other exemptive rules, to the
extent that differing disqualification standards create confusion and a
more difficult compliance regime. Adopting uniform disqualification
provisions throughout the Securities Act was cited by some commenters
as a benefit, in that it could simplify compliance and increase overall
investor protection.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \299\ See comment letters from ABA Fed. Reg. Comm.; C. Barnard;
Better Markets; NASAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, non-uniform application of the new disqualification
standards may encourage bad actors to migrate to offerings under other
exemptions. Investors may perceive a higher risk of fraud in such
offerings, which would be detrimental to their marketability and result
in greater issuance costs of all offerings under the exemptions that
are not subject to the new standards, whether or not bad actors are
involved. This could have an effect on competition by putting issuers
that are not eligible to use Rule 506 at a competitive disadvantage.
    Finally, there is a potential cost to investors of overreliance on
Rule 506(d) in assessing the risks associated with an offering. Fraud
can still occur without prior incidence of bad acting on the part of
the issuer or covered persons, and in some cases it is possible that
prior bad actions went undetected or did not otherwise result in a
sanction, or may have resulted in a sanction that does not constitute a
triggering event for disqualification.
2. Discretionary Amendments
    The amendments not specifically required under the Section 926
mandate involve costs and benefits as analyzed below.
    Reasonable Care Exception. The ``reasonable care'' exception allows
continued reliance on the Rule 506 exemption, despite the existence of
a disqualification with respect to a covered person, if the issuer can
show that it did not know and, in the exercise of reasonable care,
could not have known that the disqualification existed at the time of
the sale of securities. We anticipate that the ``reasonable care''
exception will provide benefits to the efficiency of the private
placement and capital formation process by removing a significant
disincentive to issuers' use of Rule 506 that would have arisen if
disqualification were applied on a strict liability basis. Without a
reasonable care exception, issuers might choose not to undertake
offerings in reliance on Rule 506, because of the risk of Section 5 or
blue sky law violations in circumstances that the issuer cannot
reasonably predict or control. In those circumstances,

alternative approaches to capital raising may be more costly to the
issuer or not available at all. Given that Rule 506 is the most
frequently relied-upon Securities Act exemptive rule, the impact of
issuers shifting away from it could be significant. We believe that the
reasonable care exception provides a measured and balanced approach to
preserve the intended benefits of Rule 506, which might otherwise be
impaired because of issuer concerns about strict liability for unknown
disqualifications.
    Commenters uniformly supported the reasonable care exception, but
also urged the Commission to provide greater clarity and specificity
about what steps would constitute reasonable care. Some commenters
raised concerns about compliance costs if the requirements of the
``reasonable care'' exception are too burdensome.\300\ We do not
believe it is appropriate to delineate and prescribe specific steps as
being necessary or sufficient to establish reasonable care. We believe
issuers should consider the totality of the offering taking into
account the circumstances of the offering, the covered persons involved
in the offering and the rule's requirements, which include specific
disqualifying events and covered persons subject to those disqualifying
events. The flexibility in permitting issuers to determine their own
methodology for factual inquiry is a benefit that promotes efficiency
to the extent the issuer is able to tailor its own inquiry without
adherence to uniform standards that may not be applicable or
appropriate in the context of a particular issuer or particular
offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ See Angel Capital Comment Letter 1; see also comment
letter from S&C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A potential cost of a reasonable care exception is that it may
increase the likelihood that bad actors will be able to participate in
Rule 506 offerings, because issuers may take fewer steps to make
inquiry about offering participants than they would if a strict
liability standard applied. If this occurs, it will decrease the
deterrent effect of the bad actor disqualification rules. To the extent
that the reasonable care exception fails to prevent participation by
bad actors in Rule 506 offerings, the effectiveness of the new
disqualification standard will be impaired.
    Issuers may also incur costs associated with conducting and
documenting their factual inquiry into possible disqualifications, so
they can demonstrate the exercise of reasonable care. The fact that the
rule does not specify what steps are required may increase such costs
to the extent that issuers do more to conduct and document their
inquiry than otherwise may be necessary, because of this uncertainty.
    Disclosure Requirement for Triggering Events That Predate the
Effectiveness of the Rule Amendments. As adopted, the amendments
include a disclosure requirement designed to increase investor
protection by requiring disclosure of events that would have been
disqualifying had they occurred after the effective date of the
amendments. This is a change from the proposal, under which
disqualification would have arisen with respect to events that occurred
before the amendments took effect.
    Under the amendments we are adopting, issuers will be subject to
disqualification only for triggering events that occur after the new
rules take effect. On one hand, this approach will reduce costs that
would otherwise have been incurred by issuers and other market
participants subject to pre-existing triggering events, had they been
disqualified from participating in Rule 506 offerings. On the other
hand, this approach will permit offerings involving past bad actors to
proceed under Rule 506, exposing investors to the risks that arise when
bad actors are associated with an offering. While it is difficult to
determine the net impact of implementing the new disqualification
standards in this way, investors will benefit by having access to
information about events that would be disqualifying if they had
occurred after the effective date. Investors will be able to make their
own determination of the relevance and risks associated with past bad
acts, including recidivism risk, and can request additional
information, elect not to pursue the investment opportunity or
negotiate different terms based on this information.
    We anticipate that the decision to require disclosure will provide
a benefit to issuers and investors. We believe the disclosure
requirement will serve as a useful tool to alert investors to the
presence of certain participants in offerings under Rule 506 and allow
them to make more informed investment decisions. Without a disclosure
requirement, investors may have the mistaken impression that bad actors
are no longer allowed to participate in Rule 506 offerings. As there is
no prescribed format, the disclosure could be inserted in a non-
prominent manner, such that an investor who reads the material in a
cursory fashion could remain unaware of the participation of bad actors
in the offering. Issuers could benefit from having flexibility in the
manner of disclosure. In addition, because we have imposed a disclosure
requirement rather than disqualification for pre-existing events,
issuers will not be required to revisit past negotiated settlements or
incur additional costs to request waivers for disqualification. Issuers
will, however, incur costs in connection with the factual inquiry to
determine whether disclosure is required and, if applicable, in
preparing the mandatory disclosure for investors, which we have
described in Section III above. Also, rather than provide the mandatory
disclosure, we expect some issuers may decide to take steps to avoid
having to make a disclosure, such as making changes to personnel or
retaining different compensated solicitors, and in that respect may
incur costs similar to those associated with avoiding or removing a
potential disqualification.
    We also recognize that issuers that disclose triggering events may
have greater difficulty attracting investors to their offerings and may
incur a higher cost of capital as a result. We do not have data with
respect to current issuer practices involving disclosure of the
participation of persons with a history of regulatory or other legal
sanctions for securities law violations and, as such, we are unable to
determine the extent to which the disclosure requirement will impact
issuers' cost of capital. If investors are unwilling to participate in
offerings involving prior bad actors, some issuers and other market
participants will, as a practical matter, be excluded from the Rule 506
market and will experience some or all of the impact of
disqualification.
    Commission Cease-and-Desist Orders Involving Scienter-Based Anti-
Fraud Violations and Violations of Securities Act Section 5. Under the
rule amendments we adopt today, disqualification will be triggered by
Commission cease-and-desist orders based on violations of scienter-
based anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws or Section 5
of the Securities Act. The addition of these categories of Commission
orders as a new triggering event is intended to provide a benefit to
investors by screening out additional bad actors, while reducing the
risk that disqualification would be imposed on securities law violators
who do not pose a significant investor protection concern.
    We believe the investor protection benefits of adding Commission
cease-and-desist orders to the disqualification provisions of Rule 506
justify the potential costs to issuers and other covered persons. The
benefits associated with screening bad actors out of the Rule 506
market should not depend on

whether a particular enforcement action is brought in court or through
a Commission administrative proceeding. Clearly, the absence of
Commission cease-and-desist orders from an investor protection rule
that includes federal judicial proceedings addressing the same legal
violations, and orders by state and other federal regulators addressing
the same conduct, would lead to asymmetry in the administration of
disqualification under Rule 506. We also do not believe that the
addition of Commission cease-and-desist orders is likely to impose a
significant cost to issuers and other covered persons because these
groups may already be subject to other disqualifying orders issued by
the states, federal banking regulators and the National Credit Union
Administration.
    It is difficult to predict the extent to which adding these
Commission cease-and-desist orders to the list of disqualifying events
will increase the number of bad actors subject to disqualification from
Rule 506 offerings. In our analysis of disqualifying events from 2007
through 2011 discussed earlier, we attempted to assess the number of
individuals or entities that would be disqualified as bad actors based
solely on Commission cease-and-desist orders described in subsection
(v) of Rule 506(d)(1). We identified 116 cease-and-desist orders
against respondents that were not otherwise subject to a disqualifying
injunction, disciplinary order or felony conviction during the 2007 to
2011 period.\301\ To the extent that these historical levels project
future levels of disqualifying Commission cease-and-desist orders, we
estimate that on an annual basis, there may be approximately 23
individuals or entities disqualified by cease-and-desist orders and not
also by some other triggering event. To provide a context, there were
in excess of 83,521 Rule 506 offerings during the period 2007-2011.
With 116 cease and desist orders during the same period, the potential
disqualification incidence created by Commission cease-and-desist
orders would appear to be quite low (using these inputs, less than
0.15%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \301\ As there is no comprehensive database of triggering
events, the analysis included a review of litigation releases and
other documentation for information on other events that would have
disqualified these respondents. Some of these documents provided
short disciplinary histories, but they are not comprehensive and in
any case would not capture subsequent triggering events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, inclusion of Commission cease-and-desist orders as a
triggering event for bad actor disqualification may change how
settlement negotiations are conducted between respondents and the
Commission. Even after the Commission imposes a disqualifying cease-
and-desist order upon a covered person, the Commission may grant an
appropriate waiver from disqualification based on settlement
negotiations or other remedial measures and steps taken by the covered
person to comply with the Commission cease-and-desist order. We believe
that issuers and other covered persons will be able to consider the
practical consequences of a future Commission cease-and-desist order
and alter their conduct to avoid committing the behavior causing the
violation. Alternatively, they can seek to obtain a waiver of
disqualification in enforcement settlement negotiations.
    We anticipate that this additional triggering event will add
minimal incremental costs for issuers, given the requirement in the
rule as adopted to conduct factual inquiry to determine whether the
offering is subject to bad actor disqualification. To the extent that
the addition of a disqualifying event broadens the type and the number
of covered persons who will be disqualified from participation in Rule
506 offerings, it may have a detrimental effect on capital raising
activity by delaying or deterring offerings, or causing issuers to
incur higher transaction costs.
    CFTC Orders. Under the rule amendments we adopt today,
disqualification will be triggered by orders issued by the CFTC to the
same extent as orders of the regulators enumerated in Section 926 of
the Dodd-Frank Act (e.g., state securities, insurance and banking
regulators, federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union
Administration). We believe that including orders of the CFTC will
result in the treatment of comparable sanctions similarly for
disqualification purposes, and should enable the disqualification rules
to more effectively screen out felons and bad actors. We note in that
regard that the conduct that would typically give rise to CFTC
sanctions is similar to the type of conduct that would result in
disqualification if it were the subject of sanctions by another
financial services industry regulator. In addition, the CFTC (rather
than the Commission) has authority over the investment managers of
pooled investment funds that invest in commodities and certain
derivatives products; unless Rule 506(d) covers CFTC orders, regulatory
sanctions against those investment managers are not likely to trigger
disqualification.
    We have a limited ability to quantify the impact of including CFTC
orders as a new disqualification trigger under Rule 506(d). While we
have access to general information about CFTC enforcement
activity,\302\ we have no systematic way to filter CFTC orders for
connection to Rule 506 offerings or private placements or to isolate
situations in which a participant in a Rule 506 offering would be
subject to disqualification solely on the basis of a CFTC order. While
registered broker-dealers are required to report CFTC proceedings and
orders on Form BD, we have no systematic way to filter Form BD data on
that basis or to identify registered broker-dealers that are likely to
participate in Rule 506 offerings or private placements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \302\ See e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Commission Annual
Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2012 at Appendix A (available here:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>A summary of CFTC enforcement proceedings from 2005
through 2008 is available here<EMAIL_ADDRESS>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We were able to review disclosures concerning CFTC orders on Form
ADV by registered investment advisers and exempt reporting advisers
with pooled investment fund clients. In on our review of 384 Forms ADV
(as described in detail below), we found six investment adviser firms
associated with pooled investment funds that were subject to CFTC
orders that would constitute triggering events under Rule 506(d).
    Definition of ``final order.'' The change in the definition of
``final order'' limiting it to orders under statutory authority that
provides for notice and an opportunity for hearing should have marginal
economic impact for issuers. We do not believe that the incremental
burden of inquiry to determine whether an order was issued under such
authority will have a significant impact. The change could have the
effect of reducing the number of disqualifying events for which issuers
or other market participants might seek waivers which, in cases where
the waiver would have been granted, would reduce costs and could
facilitate capital formation. The economic impact on investors from
this change will depend primarily on the extent to which the additional
procedural requirement results in bad actors that would otherwise be
disqualified remaining eligible to participate in Rule 506 offerings,
and the recidivism rates of those bad actors.
    Investment Managers. Under the rule amendments we adopt today,
investment managers of issuers that are pooled investment funds (that
is, investment advisers of pooled investment funds and persons who
provide similar investment advisory

services to pooled investment funds with respect to assets other than
securities) have been added as a new category of covered person. We
believe that this approach will reduce compliance costs, in that it
represents a ``bright-line'' category of presumed control persons based
on governance and control structures that are typical for pooled
investment fund issuers, replacing a potentially costly fact-intensive
inquiry into whether such persons should be deemed the equivalent of
``directors'' or ``executive officers'' of an issuer organized in
corporate form. The addition of this new category facilitates
equivalent treatment of operating companies and pooled investment funds
under new Rule 506(d).
    Incidence of Bad Actors Among Investment Advisers.
i. Analysis of Triggering Events Based on Enforcement Actions Initiated
by the Commission
    In the review described above in Section IV.B.3, we found that 47
of the random sample of 529 identified cases involved investment
advisers (18 of these 47 were also broker-dealers). None of these 47
investment advisers was sanctioned in connection with a private
offering. This, however, would represent only a lower bound for the
incidence of bad actor triggering events among investment advisers, as
the analysis was based on a random sample drawn from the legal
proceedings that were brought before the Commission during the period
2007-2011. In addition, our analysis does not take into account bad
actor triggering events other than those in subsections (ii), (iv), and
(v) of Rule 506(d)(1) or offerings involving bad actors that did not
give rise to enforcement activity.
ii. Form ADV Data
    We analyzed all Form ADVs filed by investment advisers for 2012 to
determine the reported incidence of disqualification triggering events.
We limited our review to forms filed by investment advisers that:
     Advise a private fund or have clients that are registered
investment companies, business development companies or other pooled
investment vehicles;
     Provided disclosure reporting pages on their current Form
ADV; and
     Indicated that some of the disclosure reporting pages are
for the adviser itself or its supervised persons.

We considered only orders whose status was reported as final. Based on
these criteria, we identified 384 investment advisers that disclosed
matters that may have constituted a triggering event under Rule 506(d).
    Looking at the cases and the regulatory and court actions involved,
we determined whether the reported sanctions would constitute
triggering events under Rule 506(d). Most of the sanctions would not
because the criteria for providing disclosure reporting pages for Form
ADV include many events that do not constitute bad actor triggering
events under new Rule 506(d). For example, we excluded cases that were
initiated by a foreign court or regulator, cases that involved an
affiliate firm or cases that involved an individual employee of an
affiliate who is not a control person in the parent advisory firm. We
also excluded cases where a sanction fell outside the relevant look-
back period, such as a Commission cease-and-desist order that is more
than five years old. In addition, we excluded cases in which an action
did not meet the relevant substantive criteria, such as Commission
cease-and-desist orders for violations other than Section 5 of the
Securities Act or a scienter-based anti-fraud provision, or felonies
that were unrelated to the criteria of Rule 506(d), such as traffic
violations.
    After these exclusions, we found that approximately 1% of reporting
investment advisers associated with pooled investment funds reported
bad actor triggering events in their 2012 Form ADV. The results of our
analysis are presented in the table below.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ Note that since an investment adviser can be subject a
combination of criminal, regulatory and civil sanctions, the sum of
the three categories of sanctions may exceed the number of
investment advisers that are subject to sanctions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                                                              investment
                                                               advisers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total investment advisers...................................      13,173
Investment advisers advising pooled investment funds........       7,772
Pooled investment fund investment advisers with disclosure           435
 reporting pages............................................
Pooled investment fund investment advisers subject to final          384
 orders.....................................................
Pooled investment fund investment advisers with `bad actor'           48
 triggering events..........................................
Criminal sanctions..........................................           1
Regulatory sanctions........................................          42
Civil sanctions.............................................          11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analysis of Costs and Benefits. Investment managers play a
significant role in the management of pooled investment funds. We have
included them in the definition of covered persons so that entities or
individuals that exercise control over fund management are subject to
bad actor disqualification under Rule 506(d). It will therefore provide
consistency for covering `control persons' of both pooled investment
fund issuers and issuers that are not pooled investment funds.
    Additional issuer costs arising from the addition of investment
managers as covered persons will arise from conducting factual
inquiries and, in some cases, restructuring governance and control
arrangements, preparing disclosure or obtaining waivers from
disqualification for having an investment adviser with a history of bad
acting. Our analysis shows that the incidence of disqualifying events
is low (less than 1%) for investment advisers. So their inclusion in
the list of covered persons should not be generally burdensome for
issuers. On the other hand, covering investment managers directly will
obviate the need for issuers to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry to
determine whether an investment manager would be regarded as a de facto
director or executive officer of a pooled investment fund, or as a
promoter of such fund. As a result, the additional costs from this new
category of covered person are not likely to be high.
    Narrower Coverage of Officers of Issuers and Financial
Intermediaries. Some commenters raised concerns that the compliance
costs associated with monitoring a potentially large class of covered
persons may be high.\304\ The rules we are adopting limit the pool of
covered persons by covering only executive officers and officers
participating in the offering, rather than all officers, of issuers,
underwriters, compensated solicitors and investment managers of pooled
investment funds. This should reduce compliance costs by limiting
covered persons to a more manageable number who should generally be
easier to identify. It should also reduce or eliminate costs, such as
lost employment opportunities, for individuals who are subject to
potentially disqualifying events but are not executive officers of
issuers, compensated solicitors or investment managers to pooled
investment fund issuers and are not personally involved in Rule 506
offerings. We do not believe it will significantly compromise the
intended investor protection benefits of the rule, because all officers
performing policy-making functions or personally involved with the
offering will be covered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ See comment letters from SIFMA; NYCBA; Five Firms; S&C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No Disqualification Where the Relevant Regulatory Authority Advises

That Disqualification is Not Warranted. The amendments we are adopting
include a provision under which disqualification will not arise if a
state or federal regulator issuing an order advises in writing that
Rule 506 disqualification is not necessary under the circumstances. We
believe this provision will create cost savings for affected covered
persons such as issuers, individuals and compensated solicitors by
eliminating the need to seek waivers from the Commission or pursue
other means of raising capital. We expect that some issuers and other
covered persons will adjust their settlement negotiations to bargain
for an express determination that disqualification from Rule 506 is
unnecessary.\305\ As the provision applies only where state or federal
regulators have determined that Rule 506 disqualification is not
necessary, we do not believe it is likely to impair the intended
investor protection benefits of the bad actor disqualification scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \305\ See Rule 506(d)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    This final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603. It relates to amendments to Rule 506 of
Regulation D under the Securities Act that disqualify certain offerings
where ``felons and other `bad actors''' are participating or present
from relying on Rule 506 for an exemption from registration under the
Securities Act, or impose disclosure requirements in respect of such
offerings.

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Action

    The primary reason for the amendments is to implement the
requirements of Section 926 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 926 requires
the Commission to issue rules under which certain offerings where
``felons and other `bad actors''' are participating or present will be
disqualified from reliance on Rule 506 under Regulation D for an
exemption from registration under the Securities Act. Under the
amendments adopted today, offerings will be disqualified for triggering
events that occur after the effective date of the amendments, and
disclosure to investors will be required in respect of triggering
events that occur before the effective date.
    Our primary objective is to implement the requirements of Section
926 of the Dodd-Frank Act. In general, the rule we are adopting
implements the statutory requirements. We have included a ``reasonable
care'' exception in the final amendments, which we believe will make
the rule easier for issuers to use, and should encourage continued use
of Rule 506 over exempt transactions outside of Rule 506. We have also
added an additional disqualifying event for certain Commission cease-
and-desist orders, which we believe will make the overall regulatory
scheme more consistent and will increase the investor protection
benefits of the amendments. We are requiring disclosure, rather than
disqualification, for triggering events occurring before effectiveness
of the final amendments as a means of enhancing protection of investors
participating in offerings involving bad actors, without giving rise to
the fairness and other concerns associated with applying the new
disqualification provisions in respect of preexisting events.

B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment

    In the proposing release, we requested comment on every aspect of
the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA''), including the
number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed
amendments, the nature of the impact, how to quantify the number of
small entities that would be affected, and how to quantify the impact
of the proposed amendments. We did not receive comments specifically
addressing the IRFA. One commenter suggested exempting offerings below
a certain size from the new disqualification provisions based on
concerns about the cost of Securities Act registration if Rule 506 were
unavailable,\306\ but we do not believe that would be consistent with
the requirements of Section 926 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ See comment letter from Burningham.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Small Entities Subject to the Rule Amendments

    The amendments will affect issuers (including both operating
businesses and investment funds that raise capital under Rule 506) and
other covered persons, such as financial intermediaries, that are small
entities. For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act under our
rules, an entity is a ``small business'' or ``small organization'' if
it has total assets of $5 million or less as of the end of its most
recent fiscal year and is engaged or proposing to engage in an offering
of securities that does not exceed $5 million.\307\ For purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment company is a small entity if
it, together with other investment companies in the same group of
related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as
of the end of its most recent fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 17 CFR 230.157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final amendments will apply to all issuers that conduct
offerings under Rule 506 and will affect small issuers (including both
operating businesses and pooled investment funds that raise capital
under Rule 506) relying on this exemption from Securities Act
registration. All issuers that sell securities in reliance on
Regulation D are required to file a Form D with the Commission
reporting the transaction. For the year ended December 31, 2012, 16,067
issuers made 18,187 new Form D filings, of which 15,208 relied on the
Rule 506 exemption. Based on information reported by issuers on Form D,
there were 3,958 small issuers \308\ relying on the Rule 506 exemption
in 2012. This number likely underestimates the actual number of small
issuers relying on the Rule 506 exemption, however, because over 50% of
issuers declined to report their size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Of this number, 3,627 of these issuers are not investment
companies, and 331 are investment companies. We also note that
issuers that are not investment companies disclose only revenues on
Form D, and not total assets. Hence, we use the amount of revenues
as a measure of issuer size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    The final amendments will impose a disclosure requirement with
respect to triggering events that occurred before the effective date of
the new disqualification provisions and would have triggered
disqualification had they occurred after that date.\309\ Such
disclosure must be in writing and furnished to each purchaser a
reasonable time prior to sale. There is no prescribed form that such
disclosure must take.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ As discussed in Part II.G of this Release, we are also
changing the form of the signature block of Form D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we expect that issuers will exercise reasonable care
to ascertain whether a disqualification exists with respect to any
covered person, and document their exercise of reasonable care. The
steps required will vary with the circumstances, but we anticipate
would generally include making factual inquiry of covered persons and,
where the issuer has reason to question the veracity or completeness of
responses to such inquiries, further steps such as reviewing
information on publicly available databases. In addition, issuers will
have to prepare any necessary disclosure regarding preexisting events.

We expect that the costs of compliance would generally be lower for
small entities than for larger ones because of the relative simplicity
of their organizational structures and securities offerings and the
generally smaller numbers of individuals and entities involved.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission believes that there are no rules that duplicate,
overlap or conflict with the final amendments to Rules 145, 147, 152
and 155; Rules 501 and 506 of Regulation D; and Form D under the
Securities Act and to Rule 30-1 of our Rules of Organization and
Program Management.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider significant
alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of our
amendments, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small
entities. In connection with the final amendments, we considered the
following alternatives:
     The establishment of different compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities;
     The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of the
rule's compliance and reporting requirements for small entities;
     The use of performance rather than design standards; and
     An exemption from coverage of the amendments, or any part
thereof, for small entities.
    With respect to the establishment of different compliance
requirements or timetables under our final amendments for small
entities, we do not think this is feasible or appropriate. The
amendments are designed to exclude ``felons and other `bad actors' ''
from involvement in Rule 506 securities offerings, which could benefit
small issuers by protecting them and their investors from bad actors
and increasing investor trust in such offerings. Increased investor
trust could reduce the cost of capital and create greater opportunities
for small businesses to raise capital.
    Likewise, with respect to potentially clarifying, consolidating, or
simplifying compliance and reporting requirements, the amendments do
not impose any new reporting requirements. To the extent they may be
considered to create a new compliance requirement to exercise
reasonable care to ascertain whether a disqualification exists with
respect to any offering and to furnish a written description of
preexisting triggering events, the precise steps necessary to meet that
requirement will vary according to the circumstances. In general, we
believe the requirement will more easily be met by small entities than
by larger ones because we believe that their structures and securities
offerings are generally less complex and involve fewer participants.
    With respect to using performance rather than design standards, we
note that the ``reasonable care'' exception is a performance standard.
    With respect to exempting small entities from coverage of these
final amendments, we believe such an approach would be impracticable
and contrary to the requirements of Section 926. Regulation D was
designed, in part, to provide exemptive relief for smaller issuers.
Exempting small entities from bad actor provisions could result in a
decrease in investor protection and trust in the private placement and
small offerings markets, which would be contrary to the legislative
intent of Section 926. We have endeavored to minimize the regulatory
burden on all issuers, including small entities, while meeting our
regulatory objectives, and have included a ``reasonable care''
exception and waiver authority for the Commission to give issuers and
other covered persons additional flexibility with respect to the
application of these amendments.

VI. Statutory Authority and Text of Amendments

    We are adopting the amendments to 17 CFR Parts 230 and 239
contained in this document under the authority set forth in Sections
4(a)(2), 19 and 28 of the Securities Act, as amended,\310\ and Section
926 of the Dodd-Frank Act.\311\ We are adopting the amendments to 17
CFR Part 200 contained in this document under the authority of Sections
4A and 4B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ 15 U.S.C. 77d(a)(2), 77s and 77z-3.
    \311\ 15 U.S.C. 77d note. Although Pub. L. No. 112-106, sec.
201(a), 126 Stat. 313 (2012) is not an authority for the amendments
in this release, it is being included in the instruction below for
the general authority citation for Part 230 to ensure that the Code
of Federal Regulations is correctly updated for purposes of the
final rule also published today.
    \312\ 15 U.S.C. 78d-1, 78d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

17 CFR Part 200

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government
agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

17 CFR Parts 230 and 239

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    For the reasons set out above, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of
Federal Regulations is hereby amended as follows:

PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS

0
1. The general authority citation for Part 200, Subpart A, continues to
read, in part, as follows and the sectional authority for Sec.  200.312
is removed.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w,
78ll (d), 78mm, 80a-37, 80b-11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 200.30-1(c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  200.30-1  Delegation of authority to Director of Division of
Corporation Finance.

* * * * *
    (c) With respect to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.) and Regulation D thereunder (Sec. Sec.  230.500 through 230.508
of this chapter), to authorize the granting of applications under
Sec. Sec.  230.505(b)(2)(iii)(C), 230.506(d)(2)(ii), and 230.507(b) of
this chapter upon the showing of good cause that it is not necessary
under the circumstances that the exemption under Regulation D be
denied.
* * * * *

PART 230--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
3. The general authority citation for Part 230 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77b note, 77c, 77d, 77d note, 77f,
77g, 77h, 77j, 77r, 77s, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78d, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n,
78o, 78o-7 note, 78t, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-28,
80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37, and Pub. L. No. 112-106, Sec.  201(a),
126 Stat. 313 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  230.145 by:
0
a. Removing the reference to ``and 4(2)'' in the second paragraph of
the Preliminary Note and adding in its place ``and 4(a)(2)'';
0
b. Removing Note 1 and Note 2 following the introductory text; and
0
c. Revising the introductory text following the Preliminary Note to
read as follows:

Sec.  230.145  Reclassification of securities, mergers, consolidations
and acquisitions of assets.

* * * * *

    Transactions for which statutory exemptions under the Act,
including those contained in sections 3(a)(9), (10), (11) and 4(2), are
otherwise available are not affected by Rule 145. Reference is made to
Rule 153a (Sec.  230.153a of this chapter) describing the prospectus
delivery required in a transaction of the type referred to in Rule 145.
A reclassification of securities covered by Rule 145 would be exempt
from registration pursuant to section 3(a)(9) or (11) of the Act if the
conditions of either of these sections are satisfied.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  230.147(b)(2) by removing the reference to ``section
4(2)'' and adding in its place ``section 4(a)(2)''.
0
6. Amend Sec.  230.152 by removing the reference to ``section 4(2)''
and adding in its place ``section 4(a)(2)''.

0
7. Amend Sec.  230.155 by removing the phrase ``Preliminary Note:'' and
redesignating that note as the introductory text, and removing the
reference to ``section 4(2)'' from paragraph (a) and adding in its
place ``section 4(a)(2)''.

0
8. Amend Sec.  230.501 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (g) and (h) as paragraphs (h) and (i),
respectively, and adding new paragraph (g); and
0
b. Redesignating Notes 1, 2, and 3 at the end of the section as Note 1
to Sec.  230.501, Note 2 to Sec.  230.501, and Note 3 to Sec.  230.501,
respectively.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  230.501  Definitions and terms used in Regulation D.

* * * * *
    (g) Final order. Final order shall mean a written directive or
declaratory statement issued by a federal or state agency described in
Sec.  230.506(d)(1)(iii) under applicable statutory authority that
provides for notice and an opportunity for hearing, which constitutes a
final disposition or action by that federal or state agency.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  230.506 by:
0
a. Redesignating the Note following paragraph (b)(2)(i) as ``Note to
paragraph (b)(2)(i)'';
0
b. Adding and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  230.506  Exemption for limited offers and sales without regard to
dollar amount of offering.

* * * * *
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) ``Bad Actor'' disqualification. (1) No exemption under this
section shall be available for a sale of securities if the issuer; any
predecessor of the issuer; any affiliated issuer; any director,
executive officer, other officer participating in the offering, general
partner or managing member of the issuer; any beneficial owner of 20%
or more of the issuer's outstanding voting equity securities,
calculated on the basis of voting power; any promoter connected with
the issuer in any capacity at the time of such sale; any investment
manager of an issuer that is a pooled investment fund; any person that
has been or will be paid (directly or indirectly) remuneration for
solicitation of purchasers in connection with such sale of securities;
any general partner or managing member of any such investment manager
or solicitor; or any director, executive officer or other officer
participating in the offering of any such investment manager or
solicitor or general partner or managing member of such investment
manager or solicitor:
    (i) Has been convicted, within ten years before such sale (or five
years, in the case of issuers, their predecessors and affiliated
issuers), of any felony or misdemeanor:
    (A) In connection with the purchase or sale of any security;
    (B) Involving the making of any false filing with the Commission;
or
    (C) Arising out of the conduct of the business of an underwriter,
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, investment adviser or paid
solicitor of purchasers of securities;
    (ii) Is subject to any order, judgment or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, entered within five years before such sale,
that, at the time of such sale, restrains or enjoins such person from
engaging or continuing to engage in any conduct or practice:
    (A) In connection with the purchase or sale of any security;
    (B) Involving the making of any false filing with the Commission;
or
    (C) Arising out of the conduct of the business of an underwriter,
broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, investment adviser or paid
solicitor of purchasers of securities;
    (iii) Is subject to a final order of a state securities commission
(or an agency or officer of a state performing like functions); a state
authority that supervises or examines banks, savings associations, or
credit unions; a state insurance commission (or an agency or officer of
a state performing like functions); an appropriate federal banking
agency; the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission; or the National
Credit Union Administration that:
    (A) At the time of such sale, bars the person from:
    (1) Association with an entity regulated by such commission,
authority, agency, or officer;
    (2) Engaging in the business of securities, insurance or banking;
or
    (3) Engaging in savings association or credit union activities; or
    (B) Constitutes a final order based on a violation of any law or
regulation that prohibits fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive
conduct entered within ten years before such sale;
    (iv) Is subject to an order of the Commission entered pursuant to
section 15(b) or 15B(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78o(b) or 78o-4(c)) or section 203(e) or (f) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(e) or (f)) that, at the time of
such sale:
    (A) Suspends or revokes such person's registration as a broker,
dealer, municipal securities dealer or investment adviser;
    (B) Places limitations on the activities, functions or operations
of such person; or
    (C) Bars such person from being associated with any entity or from
participating in the offering of any penny stock;
    (v) Is subject to any order of the Commission entered within five
years before such sale that, at the time of such sale, orders the
person to cease and desist from committing or causing a violation or
future violation of:
    (A) Any scienter-based anti-fraud provision of the federal
securities laws, including without limitation section 17(a)(1) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77q(a)(1)), section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b)) and 17 CFR 240.10b-
5, section 15(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78o(c)(1)) and section 206(1) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
(15 U.S.C. 80b-6(1)), or any other rule or regulation thereunder; or
    (B) Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77e).
    (vi) Is suspended or expelled from membership in, or suspended or
barred from association with a member of, a registered national
securities exchange or a registered national or affiliated securities
association for any act or omission to act constituting conduct
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade;
    (vii) Has filed (as a registrant or issuer), or was or was named as
an underwriter in, any registration statement or Regulation A offering
statement filed with the Commission that, within five years before such
sale,

was the subject of a refusal order, stop order, or order suspending the
Regulation A exemption, or is, at the time of such sale, the subject of
an investigation or proceeding to determine whether a stop order or
suspension order should be issued; or
    (viii) Is subject to a United States Postal Service false
representation order entered within five years before such sale, or is,
at the time of such sale, subject to a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction with respect to conduct alleged by the United
States Postal Service to constitute a scheme or device for obtaining
money or property through the mail by means of false representations.
    (2) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall not apply:
    (i) With respect to any conviction, order, judgment, decree,
suspension, expulsion or bar that occurred or was issued before
September 23, 2013;
    (ii) Upon a showing of good cause and without prejudice to any
other action by the Commission, if the Commission determines that it is
not necessary under the circumstances that an exemption be denied;
    (iii) If, before the relevant sale, the court or regulatory
authority that entered the relevant order, judgment or decree advises
in writing (whether contained in the relevant judgment, order or decree
or separately to the Commission or its staff) that disqualification
under paragraph (d)(1) of this section should not arise as a
consequence of such order, judgment or decree; or
    (iv) If the issuer establishes that it did not know and, in the
exercise of reasonable care, could not have known that a
disqualification existed under paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    Instruction to paragraph (d)(2)(iv). An issuer will not be able to
establish that it has exercised reasonable care unless it has made, in
light of the circumstances, factual inquiry into whether any
disqualifications exist. The nature and scope of the factual inquiry
will vary based on the facts and circumstances concerning, among other
things, the issuer and the other offering participants.
    (3) For purposes of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, events
relating to any affiliated issuer that occurred before the affiliation
arose will be not considered disqualifying if the affiliated entity is
not:
    (i) In control of the issuer; or
    (ii) Under common control with the issuer by a third party that was
in control of the affiliated entity at the time of such events.
    (e) Disclosure of prior ``bad actor'' events. The issuer shall
furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a
description in writing of any matters that would have triggered
disqualification under paragraph (d)(1) of this section but occurred
before September 23, 2013. The failure to furnish such information
timely shall not prevent an issuer from relying on this section if the
issuer establishes that it did not know and, in the exercise of
reasonable care, could not have known of the existence of the
undisclosed matter or matters.
    Instruction to paragraph (e). An issuer will not be able to
establish that it has exercised reasonable care unless it has made, in
light of the circumstances, factual inquiry into whether any
disqualifications exist. The nature and scope of the factual inquiry
will vary based on the facts and circumstances concerning, among other
things, the issuer and the other offering participants.

PART 239--FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

0
10. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read, in part, as
follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-7 note, 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll,
78mm, 80a-2(a), 80a-3, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-10, 80a-13, 80a-24, 80a-26,
80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Form D (referenced in Sec.  239.500) by revising the third
indented paragraph under the heading ``Terms of Submission'' in the
``Signature and Submission'' section following Item 16 to read as
follows:
    Certifying that, if the issuer is claiming a Regulation D exemption
for the offering, the issuer is not disqualified from relying on
Regulation D for one of the reasons stated in Rule 505(b)(2)(iii) or
Rule 506(d).

    Note: The text of Form D does not, and the amendments will not,
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    By the Commission.

     Dated: July 10, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16983 Filed 7-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0594; FRL-        ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland;
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Industrial Solvent
Cleaning Operations

AGENCY:     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:     Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE).  This SIP revision consists of an addition to
Maryland’s Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes
Regulation.  MDE has adopted standards for industrial solvent cleaning
operations that satisfy the reasonably available control technology
(RACT) requirements for sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
covered by control techniques guidelines (CTG).  This amendment reduces
VOC emissions from industrial solvent cleaning operations which will
help Maryland attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone.  This action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0594, by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

     B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     C.    Mail:   EPA- R03-OAR-2010-0594, Maria Pino, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket(s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0594.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an (anonymous access(
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy 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 Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Jacqueline Lewis,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.    Background

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include “reasonably available control
measures” (RACM), including “reasonably available control
technology,” for sources of emissions.  Section 182(b)(2)(A) provides
that for certain nonattainment areas, States must revise their SIPs to
include RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered by a CTG document
issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to the area’s date of
attainment.

CAA section 183(e) directs EPA to list for regulation those categories
of products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions,
on a reactivity-adjusted basis, from consumer and commercial products in
areas that violate the NAAQS for ozone.  The CTG is intended to provide
state and local air pollution control authorities information that
should assist them in determining RACT for VOC from industrial cleaning
solvents operations.

In September 2006, EPA published a CTG for industrial solvent cleaning
operations.  This CTG lists the cleaning operations associated with
industrial cleaning solvents, identifies the sources of VOC emissions
from those cleaning operations, and describes the emissions threshold
that applies to this CTG and available control options for addressing
VOC emissions.

In February 1994, EPA published and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
document for industrial cleaning solvents.  This report describes
alternative techniques that will reduce VOC emissions from those
industrial cleaning solvents used to remove contaminants.  The ACT
document also provides a quantitative overview of cleaning solvents used
and a model for accounting and tracking solvent usage.  This document is
also an appendix to the CTG document listed above.

II.   Summary of SIP Revision

On April 22, 2010, the State of Maryland submitted a SIP revision
(#10-03) to address sources of VOC emissions covered by EPA’s CTG:
Industrial Cleaning Solvents (see EPA 453/R-06-001, September 2006).
This SIP revision adds a new regulation .09-1 under COMAR 26.11.19
(Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes).

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 - Control of VOC Emissions from Industrial Solvent
Cleaning Operations Other Than Cold and Vapor Degreasing - affects
facilities that emit 15 pounds or more per day of VOCs (before
consideration of controls) from the use of industrial solvent cleaning
operations other then cold and vapor degreasing.  Exclusions include:

Cleaning operations at sources subject to any other VOC regulation in
COMAR 26.11.19:

Cleaning of electrical and electric components;

Cleaning of high precision optics;

Stripping;

Janitorial cleaning; cleaning of resin, coating, ink, and adhesive
mixing, molding and application equipment;

Cleaning operations in research and development laboratories;

Cleaning operations in medical device or pharmaceutical manufacturing;
and

Cleaning operations related to performance or quality assurance testing
of coatings, inks, or adhesives.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 requires the vapor pressure of the cleaning solution
to be less than or equal to 8 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) at 20º C
before it may be used.  This regulation also requires the maintenance of
monthly records of the total solvent material used.  These records must
be made available to MDE upon request.  Facilities affected by this
regulation must also observe the work practice requirements, compliance
procedures and test methods found in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> (Applicability,
Determining Compliance, Reporting, and General Requirements).

During the State’s public comment period, a comment was received
opposing the implementation of the 50 grams VOC per liter limit to
digital printing operations.  The commenter stated that the provisions
contained in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>F include the use of cleaning solvents by
digital printing operations; therefore digital operations should be
exempt from this proposed regulation.  In response Maryland concluded
that digital printing sources are subject to the regulations under COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>F, and are therefore exempt from the requirements of COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-1.  EPA agrees with Maryland’s response; since
Maryland’s definition of Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations
includes many exemptions, one of which excludes all sources subject to
the requirements of any other VOC regulation in COMAR 26.11.19 (Volatile
Organic Compounds from Specific Processes).  COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-1A(6)(b)(ii), reads as follows:  Industrial Solvent Cleaning
Operations does not include cleaning operations at sources subject to
any other VOC regulations in this subtitle.

III. 	Final Action

EPA is approving Maryland’s SIP revision because it meets the
requirement for establishing RACT for sources of VOC emissions covered
by EPA’s Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG.  EPA is publishing this
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment.  However,
in the (Proposed Rules( section of today(s Federal Register, EPA is
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.  This rule will
be effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of publication in the
Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA receives adverse
comment by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register].  If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect.  EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.  EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action.  Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

IV. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.  Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.

This action pertaining to Maryland’s adoption of RACT requirements for
VOC emissions from industrial cleaning solvents 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

__September 14, 2010_
___________/s/_____________

Dated:                                				W. C. Early, Acting

                                      				Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V( Maryland

2. In ( 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding an
entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 to read as follows:

( 52.1070  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)* * *

       EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP

Code of Maryland administrative regulations (COMAR) citation

Title/subject

State effective date

EPA approval date

Additional explanation/

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100

  *            *               *              *              *
      *             *

26.11.19

Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes

   *             *             *             *             *
*             *

<IP_ADDRESS>-1

Control of VOC Emissions from Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations
Other Than Cold and Vapor Degreasing.

4/19/10

[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]

New Regulation

 *             *               *                *                *
        *           *

*   *   *   *   *

 PAGE

 PAGE   11


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23825-23826]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0002]

Study Methodologies for Diagnostics in the Postmarket Setting;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Study Methodologies for Diagnostics in the
Postmarket Setting.'' The purpose of the public workshop is to provide
a forum for discussion among FDA, governmental Agencies, academia,
physicians, and various stakeholders with expertise in epidemiology,
statistics, diagnostics, and biomedical research to advance the
methodologies for diagnostics in the postmarket setting.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on May 12, 2011,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. Participants are encouraged to arrive early
to ensure time for parking and security screening before the workshop.
Sign-in will be required.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak
Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great
Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public
meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    The public workshop with also be available to be viewed via online
Web-cast (see Registration).
    Contact Person: Hui-Lee Wong, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, rm. 4611, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Xueying Sharon Liang, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4110, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: In-person and Web-cast registration and information
are available at the following Web site: http://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/

ucm251696.htm. There is no fee to attend the public workshop, but
attendees must register in advance. Registration will be on a first-
come, first-served basis. Non-U.S. citizens are subject to additional
security screening, and they should register as soon as possible.
Registration ends May 5, 2011.
    If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please
contact Susan Monahan at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least 7 days in
advance of the public workshop.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why are we holding this public workshop?

    The purpose of the public workshop is to facilitate discussion
among FDA, governmental Agencies, academia, physicians, and the key
stakeholders in the scientific community on issues related to the
studies and methodological approaches examining diagnostics in the
postmarket settings. We aim to create a dialogue between professionals
with epidemiologic, statistical, and clinically relevant expertise in
diagnostic devices to determine the evidence gaps and questions,
datasets and approaches for conducting postmarket surveillance and
robust analytic studies to improve our understanding of the performance
of diagnostics at the postmarket settings.

II. Who is the target audience for this public workshop? Who should
attend this public workshop?

    This public workshop is open to all interested parties. The target
audience is professionals in the scientific community with experience
in epidemiology, diagnostics, or biomedical research with an interest
in diagnostic devices and epidemiologic study methodology.

III. What are the topics we intend to address at the public workshop?

    We intend to discuss a large number of methodological concerns at
the workshop, including, but not limited to the following:
     Gaps and challenges in postmarket studies of diagnostics,
     Identifying and verifying emerging data sources and
methodologies, and
     Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration towards
identifying new opportunities in methodologies for diagnostic devices.

IV. Where can I find out more about this public workshop?

    Background information on the public workshop, registration
information, the agenda, information about lodging, transcripts, and
other relevant information will be posted, as it becomes available, on
the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings.html.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-10273 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59320-59322]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21236]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0092; FRL-10017-02-R4]

Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Emissions Inventory Requirements for
the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment
Cabinet (Cabinet) on December 22, 2021, to address the base year
emissions inventory requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for Kentucky counties in the
Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area
(hereinafter referred to as the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area), and for
Kentucky counties in the Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana 2015 8-hour NAAQS
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the Louisville, KY-IN
Area). Specifically, EPA is finalizing approval of Kentucky's SIP
revision addressing the emissions inventory requirements for the 2015
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas for the portions of Boone, Campbell,
and Kenton Counties in the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area, and Bullitt,
Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in the Louisville, KY-IN Area. These
requirements apply to all ozone nonattainment areas. This action is
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0092. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information 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 at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation

Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9088. Ms. Bell can also be reached via electronic mail at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
lowering the level of the NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to
0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).\1\ Effective August 3,
2018, EPA designated the seven-county Cincinnati, OH-KY Area as a
Marginal ozone nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ See 83
FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). In the same action, EPA also designated the
five-county Louisville, KY-IN Area as a Marginal ozone nonattainment
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\3\ The Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the
Louisville, KY-IN Area were designated nonattainment for the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS using 2014-2016 ambient air quality data. On December
22, 2021, Kentucky submitted a SIP revision addressing the base year
emissions inventory requirements related to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area.\4\ CAA
section 182(a)(1) requires the submission of a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all emissions sources in the
nonattainment area, known as a ``base year inventory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2015 Ozone NAAQS was promulgated on October 1, 2015,
published on October 26, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015.
    \2\ The Cincinnati, OH-KY Area consists of the following
counties: Boone (partial), Campbell (partial), and Kenton (partial)
in Kentucky and the entire counties of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton,
and Warren in Ohio. EPA took action on the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area emissions inventory requirements for Butler,
Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties in Ohio in a separate
action. See 86 FR 12270 (March 3, 2021).
    \3\ The Louisville, KY-IN Area consists of Bullitt, Jefferson,
and Oldham Counties in Kentucky and Clark and Floyd Counties in
Indiana. EPA took action on the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment area emissions inventory requirements for Clark and
Floyd Counties in Indiana in a separate action. See 87 FR 39750
(July 5, 2022).
    \4\ On October 15, 2020, the Cabinet submitted a certification
that included other required elements for ozone nonattainment areas
pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(2)(C), Nonattainment New Source
Review, and CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), Emissions statements. On
August 12, 2020, KDAQ submitted a certification on behalf of the
Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District that included the
required elements for ozone nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B), Emissions statements. On April 5, 2022, EPA
took final action on the portion of Kentucky's October 15, 2020,
submission related to CAA section 182(a)(2)(C), Nonattainment New
Source Review. See 87 FR 19649. On March 9, 2022, EPA took final
action on the District's August 12, 2020, submission related to CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B), Emissions statements. See 87 FR 13177. On
April 26, 2022, EPA took final action on the portion of Kentucky's
October 15, 2020, submission related to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B),
Emissions statements. See 87 FR 24429.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 26, 2022, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to approve the December 22, 2021, SIP revision
regarding the base year emissions inventory submittal for the
Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area for the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. See 87 FR 44310. More information regarding EPA's
analysis of Kentucky's December 22, 2021, SIP revision and how Kentucky
addresses the above-mentioned requirements is provided in EPA's July
26, 2022, NPRM. Comments on EPA's July 26, 2022, NPRM were due on
August 25, 2022. No comments were received on EPA's July 26, 2022,
NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned SIP revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky addressing the base year emissions inventory
requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for the Cincinnati, OH-KY
Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area. EPA has determined that the
Cincinnati, OH-KY Area and the Louisville, KY-IN Area base year
emissions inventory requirements SIP revision meets the requirements of
sections 110 and 182 of the CAA with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 these actions 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 November 29, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule(s) or
action(s). 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
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 S--Kentucky

0
2. In Sec.  52.920(e), amend the table by adding entries for
``Emissions Inventory for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for Northern
Kentucky'' and ``Emissions Inventory for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS
for Louisville'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA--Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approval date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Emissions Inventory for the 2015   Boone, Campbell,         10/15/2021  9/30/2022, [Insert   ...................
 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for Northern    and Kenton                           citation of
 Kentucky.                          Counties (partial)                   publication].
                                    in Kentucky
                                    portion of
                                    Cincinnati, OH-KY
                                    Area.
Emissions Inventory for the 2015   Jefferson County in      10/15/2021  9/30/2022, [Insert   ...................
 8-hour Ozone NAAQS for             its entirety, and                    citation of
 Louisville.                        Bullitt and Oldham                   publication].
                                    Counties (partial)
                                    in Kentucky
                                    portion of
                                    Louisville, KY-IN
                                    Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-21236 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P