to continuously collect timely information on RSL designations.\243\
For example, one opposing commenter emphasized that using the existing
branch-office registration process would provide FINRA ``with more
current information . . . because of existing requirements to amend and
update information within 30 days.'' \244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ NASAA I at 2; see Davenport at 2.
    \242\ See letter from James Rabenstine, Vice President, NISC and
NSLLC Chief Compliance Officer, Nationwide Office of the Chief Legal
Officer, Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Holly Butson, Chief
Compliance Officer, Nationwide Fund Distributors, LLC, Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc. to Sherry Haywood, Assistant Secretary,
Commission, dated Apr. 24, 2023, at 2 (``Nationwide''); FSI at 3-4.
    \243\ See Nationwide at 2; FSI at 3-4.
    \244\ FSI at 3-4; see Nationwide at 2 (recommended ``a separate
filing for [an RSL] like a Form BR 2, similar to the U4 page 2
process, so that members have a way to track and link Registered
Representatives who are supervised from the [RSL] not an OSJ'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA declined to modify the proposed rule
change.\245\ FINRA indicated, however, that it appreciates the
commenters' recommendations and ``is exploring ways for firms to
provide this information to FINRA and other state regulators in a more
efficient manner.'' \246\ No commenter offered a specific response to
FINRA's decision not to modify the proposed rule change, although one
commenter encouraged FINRA to seek input from its members to avoid
creating an ``overly burdensome reporting process.'' \247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ See FINRA Response I at 9.
    \246\ Id.; FINRA Response II at 7 (FINRA ``is exploring ways for
firms to provide this information to FINRA and state regulators in a
more efficient and timely manner, including through the use of
existing uniform registration forms or FINRA Gateway.'').
    \247\ XML at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prompt access to information about a member firm's RSL designations
should improve the ability of FINRA to readily identify which of a
member firm's locations have been designated as an RSL and more
efficiently assess the reasonableness of a member firm's RSL
designations and corresponding supervision. Therefore, the proposed
rule change's quarterly-reporting requirement is reasonable and would
provide FINRA with the information it needs to carry out its regulatory
obligations.\248\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ FINRA indicated that it is exploring ways to structure
this data-collection requirement, and it expressed appreciation for
the commenters' suggestions. FINRA Response I at 9; FINRA Response
II at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Risk Assessment
    As stated above, proposed Rule 3110.19(e) would require a member
firm--prior to designating any location as an RSL--to ``develop a
reasonable risk-based approach to designating such office or location
as an RSL, and [to] conduct and document a risk assessment'' that
considers five mandatory factors.\249\ These factors would require
consideration of, among other things, customer complaints, firm-imposed
heightened supervisory plans, and regulatory communications indicating
a failure to reasonably supervise.\250\ The proposed rule change also
would require the member to account for any higher risk activities
occurring at the location, any higher risk associated persons assigned
to the location, and any indicators of irregularities or misconduct
(i.e., red flags) prior to designating a location as an RSL.\251\
Further, the proposed rule change would provide that member firms
should review red flags--and consider evidencing their review--in
determining whether it is reasonable to maintain an RSL designation for
a particular location.\252\ FINRA explained that this risk assessment--
and the non-exhaustive list of factors to consider--would strengthen
supervisory controls and further investor protection ``by requiring
firms to consider higher risk criteria in determining whether to
designate an office or location as an RSL.'' \253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(e); Amendment No. 1 at 8; Amendment
No. 2 at 4-5. The five mandatory factors are: ``(1) customer
complaints, taking into account the volume and nature of the
complaints; (2) heightened supervision other than where such office
or location is ineligible for RSL designation under [proposed Rule
3110.19(c)(3)]; (3) any failure to comply with the member's written
supervisory procedures; (4) any recordkeeping violation; and (5) any
regulatory communications from a Regulator, indicating that the
associated person at such office or location failed reasonably to
supervise another person subject to their supervision, including but
not limited to, subpoenas, preliminary or routine regulatory
inquiries or requests for information, deficiency letters, `blue
sheet' requests or other trading questionnaires, or examinations.''
See proposed Rule 3110.19(e).
    \250\ See supra note 103 and accompanying text.
    \251\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(e).
    \252\ Id.
    \253\ FINRA Response I at 9-10; Amendment No. 1 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter offered unqualified support for the proposed rule
change.\254\ Two other supportive commenters asked that FINRA clarify
and modify one aspect of proposed Rule

3110.19(e)(5).\255\ As originally proposed in Amendment No. 1, the risk
assessment would have required members to consider, among other things,
``any regulatory communications from a Regulator, including but not
limited to, subpoenas, preliminary or routine regulatory inquiries or
requests for information, deficiency letters, `blue sheet' requests or
other trading questionnaires, or examinations indicating that the
associated person at such office or location failed reasonably to
supervise another person subject to their supervision.'' \256\ The
commenters that asked for modifications both questioned whether the
italicized language modified the preceding illustrative list or only
``examinations.'' \257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ Cetera II at 1 (``We endorse the requirement for member
firms to develop and document a risk-based assessment before
designating a location[] as an RSL. This approach is both logical
and proportional.''); see XML at 2 (``In addition to the time needed
to address other requirements in Rule 3110.19, members will need
adequate time to develop policies and procedures to comply with the
location assessments and documentation requirements of Rule
3110.19(e) and time to implement and perform such activities.'').
    \255\ SIFMA II at 1-2 (offering general support for the proposed
rule change); Fidelity II at 2 (``We conceptually support the
addition of a risk assessment and appreciate there may be instances
where use of the RSL is not appropriate.'').
    \256\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(e)(5) (emphasis added); Amendment
No. 1 at 8.
    \257\ SIFMA II at 2-3 (``It is not clear whether the emphasized
phrase is meant to modify all the listed types of communications or
only examinations. It may be difficult to determine how these non-
investigatory communications indicate a risk presented by an RSL
absent an indication of supervisory concern.''); Fidelity II at 2
(``It is not clear whether the phrase `indicating that the
associated person at such office or location failed reasonably to
supervise another person subject to their supervision' is meant to
modify all the listed types of communications or only
examinations.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commenters' concern about ambiguity in the scope
of proposed Rule 3110.19(e)(5), FINRA reorganized the proposed rule
text to improve its readability.\258\ As modified by Amendment No. 2,
proposed Rule 3110.19(e)(5) reads as follows: ``any regulatory
communications from a Regulator, indicating that the associated person
at such office or location failed to reasonably supervise another
person subject to their supervision, including but not limited to,
subpoenas, preliminary or routine regulatory inquiries or requests for
information, deficiency letters, `blue sheet' requests or other trading
questionnaires, or examinations.'' \259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ FINRA Response II at 8; Amendment No. 2 at 4.
    \259\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(e)(5); Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One opposing commenter stated that the risk assessment's
requirement ``to `consider' higher risk criteria'' is
insufficient.\260\ For example, this commenter stated that red flags
and many of the risk assessment's factors should constitute eligibility
exclusions, not just factors for a member to consider.\261\ In
addition, the commenter criticized FINRA's ``complete lack of guidance
as to how to weigh and assess the various risk criteria,'' including
the volume and nature of customer complaints.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ PIABA II at 4.
    \261\ Id.
    \262\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA stated that it ``expects that a firm will
consider customer complaints and weigh their volume and nature based on
the firm's business, products, and customer base among other factors
generally considered by the firm when making risk-based assessments in
other contexts, such as in how a firm may establish and maintain a
supervisory system that is appropriately tailored to the firm's
business and structure, whether unannounced visits to an office or
location may be appropriate, or whether heightened supervisory
procedures may need to be imposed.'' \263\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ FINRA Response II at 7; see FINRA Response I at 7 (``FINRA
emphasizes that the enumerated list of factors is non-exhaustive.
While consumer-initiated, investment-related arbitration or civil
litigation is not listed as one of the enumerated factors under
proposed Rule 3110.19(e), FINRA agrees that the presence of such
arbitration or civil litigation would be a factor for a firm to
consider as part of the risk assessment.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the proposed rule change's member- and location-
level exclusions prohibit the designation of RSLs in certain
circumstances that may indicate a higher potential risk of non-
compliance. But other factors not explicitly identified among the
exclusions can, in certain circumstances, indicate heightened levels of
risk either before or after RSL designation. Proposed Rule 3110.19(e)
will help to mitigate residual risk not explicitly addressed in the
conditions, firm-level exclusions, and location-level exclusions.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would require a member firm to
assess and document for each associated person at a candidate RSL
certain indicia of risk, including the volume and nature of customer
complaints, any firm-imposed heightened supervisory plans, and any
regulatory communications indicating that the associated person failed
reasonably to supervise another person subject to their supervision,
prior to RSL designation. In addition, the proposed rule change would
require a member to account for any higher risk activities occurring at
the location, any higher risk associated persons assigned to the
location, and any red flags when designating a location as an RSL.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change emphasizes consideration of red
flags as part of a member firm's ongoing determination of whether it is
reasonable to maintain an RSL designation. In this way, the proposed
rule change helps to ensure that a member firm designating RSLs
appropriately accounts for the full range of risks associated with each
proposed RSL. For these reasons, the proposed rule change is
reasonable.
    A commenter asserted that the five factors in the risk assessment
should instead be eligibility exclusions and noted the absence of
guidance as to how to weigh and assess the various risk factors.\264\
As an assessment of the risk associated with each factor will depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case, no single factor lends itself
to an automatic exclusion. For example, customer complaints may, in
certain cases, indicate an unacceptable level of risk, but in other
cases, complaints may be overly broad or lack factual development to
indicate the level of risk. Moreover, as discussed below, this is an
ongoing risk assessment, and its outcome could change with new
circumstances or as the member firm obtains additional information.
Therefore, it is reasonable for FINRA to instead require that firms
consider each factor as part of a person-specific risk assessment prior
to RSL designation. Similarly, it is reasonable that the proposed rule
change provides member firms flexibility as to how to weigh and assess
the various risk factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \264\ PIABA II at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Frequency of Inspections
    RSL designation would permit firms to inspect the location on a
regular periodic schedule (presumed to be at least every three years)
instead of the annual schedule otherwise required for OSJs and
supervisory branch offices.\265\

Two commenters opposed this less-frequent inspection cycle and
contended that RSLs should be inspected annually.\266\ Emphasizing the
importance of effective supervision, one commenter stated that ``[l]ax
or otherwise ineffective supervision can result in the failure to stop
preventable harms before they occur, or even exacerbate harms that have
already begun.'' \267\ Although the commenter did not dispute the
emergence of the hybrid work environment and supervision technologies,
it contended that those developments have no ``bearing on the
appropriate frequency or depth of scrutiny of supervisory activities.''
\268\ It also contended that ``FINRA has not shown that supervisory
functions present sufficiently `lower risk' to warrant loosening
oversight of individuals performing those functions.'' \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(a); FINRA Rules 3110(c)(1)(C) and
3110.13. Virtu Financial, Inc., and Nationwide submitted out-of-
scope comments regarding the frequency and method of inspections.
Virtu asked FINRA to modify the proposed rule change ``to codify
that all personal residences where only electronic activities are
carried out, whether those be supervisory or other securities-
related activities, are non-branch locations and reconsider the need
to conduct any physical inspections of an associated person's
residence and instead rely on technological monitoring tools and
electronic recordkeeping.'' Letter from Thomas M. Merritt, Deputy
General Counsel, Virtu Financial, Inc., to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated Aug. 1, 2023, at 2 (``Virtu'').
Nationwide asked FINRA to permit certain limited-purpose OSJs,
supervisory branch offices, and RSLs to be inspected remotely and/or
on a five-year inspection cycle. Nationwide at 1-2. Because the
proposed rule change is designed to establish a new location
designation (RSL) for certain personal residences at which
supervisory activities occur, the recommendations regarding the
method of inspection are outside the scope of the proposed rule
change. Because Nationwide appears to request an amended inspection
schedule for any limited-purpose OSJ, supervisory branch office, or
RSL--regardless of its status as a personal residence--the request
to for a five-year inspection cycle is likewise outside the scope of
the proposed rule change. FINRA stated, however, that it would
consider these recommendation ``more generally as part of any future
initiatives to consider the OSJ and branch office definitions more
broadly.'' FINRA Response I at 13; FINRA Response II at 9.
    \266\ NASAA I at 3; NASAA II at 5; PIABA I at 3 (``[R]esidential
supervisory locations should at minimum be subject to annual in
person audits, if not more frequent unannounced visits, rather than
periodic inspections every three years.'').
    \267\ NASAA I at 3.
    \268\ Id. at 4.
    \269\ Id. at 3; see NASAA II at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA declined to require annual inspections for RSLs,
explaining that ``impos[ing] an annual inspection cycle on an RSL would
adversely impact the utility'' of the proposed rule change.\270\ FINRA
stressed that ``the inspection requirement is only one part'' of a
member firm's ``ongoing obligation'' to supervise under Rule 3110, and
``a firm's inspection of an office or location is not the only occasion
during which a firm supervises its associated persons.'' \271\ Indeed,
FINRA stated that Rule 3110 ``does not preclude a firm from conducting
inspections of its offices or locations more frequently or conducting
unannounced visits.'' \272\ FINRA also stated that the proposed rule
change includes ``a rigorous set of safeguards and conditions that . .
. align with the regulatory purposes of Rule 3110.'' \273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ FINRA Response I at 10-12.
    \271\ Id. at 12.
    \272\ Id.
    \273\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change permits--but does not require--member
firms to inspect their RSLs on a less frequent inspection cycle. This
proposed rule change is reasonable for two reasons. First, the proposed
rule change is reasonable in light of Rule 3110's general obligation to
establish and maintain a reasonably designed supervisory system that is
tailored to its unique business operations and associated risks.
Although an RSL designation would permit a member firm to inspect a
location on a less frequent schedule, the proposed rule change would
not limit inspections to this less frequent schedule. Instead, Rule
3110 contemplates that a member firm may, in certain circumstances,
choose to conduct more frequent or unannounced visits to an RSL in
furtherance of its obligation to supervise effectively. In this way,
the proposed rule change is consistent with that obligation.
    Relatedly, the Rule 3110 requirement to maintain a reasonably
designed supervisory system is an ongoing obligation. A firm may need
to reconsider a residence's RSL designation, and the corresponding
relief from annual inspection, if circumstances suggest that the
designation may no longer be appropriate. Importantly, proposed Rule
3110.19(e) indicates that firms should review red flags when
determining whether it is reasonable to maintain an RSL designation.
The various terms and conditions associated with initial RSL
designation therefore are only the beginning of an ongoing assessment
of a location's qualification for RSL designation and less frequent
inspections.
    Second, the proposed rule change is reasonable in light of its
terms and conditions. The member- and location-level eligibility
exclusions would identify--and exclude--certain firms and locations
with characteristics that may indicate a higher potential risk of non-
compliance.\274\ Additionally, an eligible member firm may designate
its eligible location as an RSL only if it complies with ten
conditions, such as limitations on customer interactions, a
recordkeeping requirement, and a mandatory technology assessment.\275\
Even if an eligible member firm is prepared to comply with those ten
conditions, it must still ``develop a reasonable risk-based approach to
designating [the eligible location] as an RSL, and conduct and document
a risk assessment for the associated person assigned to'' the proposed
RSL.\276\ These layers of protection are designed to limit RSL
designation (and its less-frequent inspection cycle) to locations
without indicia of increased potential risk of non-compliance. With
those safeguards, a regular periodic inspection schedule is reasonable
for those locations that can comply with the proposed rule change's
various terms and conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(b), (c).
    \275\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(a).
    \276\ Proposed Rule 3110.19(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the
Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2023-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2023-006. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. Do not include personal
identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in
part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is
obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should
refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2023-006 and

should be submitted on or before December 15, 2023.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment
No. 2 in the Federal Register.\277\ In Amendment No. 2, FINRA modified
the proposed rule change--in direct response to comments received--to
clarify the substantive intent of proposed Rule 3110.19(e)(5). FINRA
did not propose to change any substantive obligation of the proposed
rule change. To reduce ambiguity regarding its scope, FINRA instead
proposed to reorganize a single sentence describing a single factor in
the mandatory risk assessment.\278\ The basis for this amendment is the
same as the basis for the original proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, which the Commission previously noticed for public
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \278\ See supra notes 258 through 259 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of the comments FINRA received on the proposed
rule change, the Commission concludes that Amendment No. 2 represents a
reasonable extension of, and is substantially similar to, the language
originally proposed for proposed Rule 3110.19(e). The Commission also
concludes that Amendment No. 2 responds to comments received, adds
clarity to the proposed rule change, and does not raise any novel
regulatory concerns. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\279\ to approve the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act, which requires,
among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public
interest.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \280\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \281\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2023-006),
as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \282\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25880 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14178-14180]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05229]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0806; FRL-9905-18-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution
Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from graphic arts operations and from surface
preparation and cleaning operations. We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 12, 2014 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 14, 2014. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2013-0806, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were adopted by PCAPCD and submitted by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency             Rule            Rule title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD.............................             239  Graphic Arts Operations....        10/11/12        02/06/13
PCAPCD.............................             240  Surface Preparation and            12/11/03        09/24/13
                                                      Cleanup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of PCAPCD Rule 239 into the SIP on
November 13, 1998 (63 FR 63410). No previous version of PCAPCD Rule 240
has been approved into the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions by limiting VOC
content in solvents and coatings. EPA's technical support documents
(TSDs) have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(1) and
193). In addition, SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM), including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability
and RACT requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook),
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'' EPA, Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook),
    3. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Control Techniques
Guidelines for Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing,
September 2006 (EPA-453/R-06-002),
    4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Industrial Cleaning Solvents'', EPA, September
2006 (EPA-453/R-06-001)

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by April 14, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on May 12, 2014. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 May 12, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 19, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(428) (i)(A)(2)
and (c)(434) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (428) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rule 239, ``Graphic Arts Operations,'' amended on October 11,
2012.
* * * * *
    (434) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs was
submitted on September 24, 2013, by the Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 240, ``Surface Preparation and Cleanup,'' amended on
December 11, 2003.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-05229 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27627-27629]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP14-347-000, CP19-19-000]

Magnolia LNG, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Magnolia LNG Production
Capacity Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement
(supplemental EIS) that will discuss the potential environmental
impacts resulting from Magnolia LNG, LLC's (Magnolia LNG) proposal to
increase the liquefied natural gas (LNG) production capacity at its
authorized LNG facility in Calcasieu, Louisiana from that previously
approved by the Commission in Docket No. CP14-347-000 (Magnolia LNG
Production Capacity Amendment). The Commission will use this
supplemental EIS in its decision-making process to determine whether

Magnolia LNG's proposed amendment is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project amendment. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into
account the environmental impacts that could result from its action
whenever it considers whether or not to authorize a project. NEPA also
requires the Commission to discover concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the supplemental EIS on
the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission
requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the
supplemental EIS. Please note that your comments should be specific to
the Production Capacity Amendment, which is described further below.
Comments relating only to non-related aspects of the already approved
Magnolia LNG Project will not be considered in the supplemental EIS. To
ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please
submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project amendment. Your comments should focus on the
potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the
Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the
supplemental EIS.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project amendment. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project amendment and encourage them to comment on their areas of
concern.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a Comment on a
Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project amendment
docket number (CP19-19-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; a 45-
day public comment period will be established once the draft
supplemental EIS is issued.

Summary of the Proposed Project Amendment

    Magnolia LNG requests authorization to increase the previously
authorized LNG production capacity of the Magnolia LNG Project (Docket
No. CP14-347-000) from 8 million tons per annum (MTPA) to 8.8 MTPA.
Magnolia LNG states that the increased LNG production capacity would be
realized through the optimization of its final design and would not
require any increase in the authorized feed gas rates. Magnolia LNG
does not propose any additional construction or new or modified
facilities already considered and approved in Docket No. CP14-347-000
(i.e., the approved LNG terminal site in Lake Charles, Calcasieu
Parish, Louisiana \1\.) Magnolia LNG also affirms that the annual
number of LNG takers (vessel traffic) would not change from that
already reviewed and approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The LNG terminal site location and staff's evaluation of the
original (approved) Magnolia LNG Project are in the Commission's
final EIS for the project, issued on November 13, 2015. That EIS is
available at www.ferc.gov using the link called eLibrary or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on connecting to
eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supplemental EIS Process and Identified Issues

    The supplemental EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a
result of the proposed increase in production capacity described above.
To date, we have identified potential environmental concerns related to
the proposed process conditions for LNG, anhydrous ammonia, and other
process fluids. As a result, Magnolia LNG indicated revised hazard
distances with increased offsite impacts. Therefore, associated hazard
mitigation, such as impoundment designs and other fire protection
systems need to be reevaluated as a result of the higher production
rate. There may also be revisions to air emissions and noise levels; if
so, these will be evaluated and discussed in the supplemental EIS.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project amendment or portions of the project amendment, and
make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas.
    The supplemental EIS will present Commission staffs' independent
analysis of the issues. The draft supplemental EIS will be available in
electronic format in the public record through eLibrary \2\ and the
Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification
when the draft EIS is issued. The draft EIS will be issued for an
allotted public comment period. After the comment period on the draft
EIS, Commission staff will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure
Commission staff have the opportunity to address your comments, please
carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section,
beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law

and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project amendment to formally cooperate in the preparation of the
supplemental EIS.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice. The
U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard will participate as
cooperating agencies in the preparation of the supplemental EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) for the original Magnolia LNG Project who are potential
right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for
project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of
aboveground facilities (including the LNG terminal site), and anyone
who submits comments on the project amendment. Commission staff will
update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to
ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are
sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project
amendment.
    A Notice of Availability of the draft EIS will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The return mailer appendix referenced in this notice will
not appear in the Federal Register, but was sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project amendment is available
from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or
on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number
in the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP19-19). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: June 7, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12456 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11145]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

Drawbridge Operations Regulations

CFR Correction

0
 In Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 124,
revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 646, in Sec.  117.739, paragraph
(o) is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2018-05245 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D