pull up the actual statute. But 0107 1 our rule currently  the proposed rural currently 2 states that under joint ventures, it says a joint 3 venture may be considered owned and controlled by 4 socially, economically disadvantaged individuals not 5 withstanding the size of the joint venture. 6 So while that applies to joint ventures my 7 thinking is because the size is not taken into account 8 with such a thing, when we're talking about a business 9 owned by the tribe, my common sense thinking is that 10 the net worth of the tribe is not going to be a 11 consideration. 12 Because if we don't consider it with a joint 13 venture, I'm sure we could not consider it with a 14 tribally owned type of thing or consortia. So that's 15 my thinking, but I'm still going to try to pull up  16 going to try another phone jack around here to see if I 17 can get another line out and find out exactly what it 18 states. But that's my common sense answer for right 19 now, because it would make sense to apply it on one 20 half and not on the other. 21 MS. BROWN: The other thing is the good faith 22 efforts, that's a change. The six affirmative steps 23 and 40 CFR Part 31 and the six positive efforts in 40 24 CFR Part 30 are being combined to now be known as the 25 good faith efforts and this is new. Right now we call 0108 1 them the six affirmative steps basically. We're 2 combining those two parts and calling them good faith 3 efforts. 4 And that's basically going through the 5 process of identifying what you're doing to be 6 inclusive of minority and woman owned businesses in 7 your process as you go out to procure or your prime 8 contractor does. Documentation is the key to your 9 files, documenting what you do, what your findings 10 were. 11 Under the contract administration provisions 12 we are proposing that a recipient must be notified in 13 writing by its prime contractor to any kind of 14 termination or any termination of a DBE subcontractor, 15 and this is to prevent the bait and switch or the 16 switch and bait that they do. They say the have 17 somebody. We see a name and then once the contract is 18 awarded, they never get the work. 19 When a DBE subcontractor fails to complete 20 its work under a subcontract for any reason, the 21 recipients must require the prime contractor, the 22 recipient being you, to make good faith efforts in 23 hiring another subcontractor undertaking the six 24 affirmative steps or positive efforts. 25 The other one  and this is a big one  a 0109 1 recipient must require his prime contractor to make 2 good faith efforts even if the fair share objectives 3 have been met. On some of these, especially in our 4 drink water programs, they may make  meet the good 5 faith efforts and still have a lot more that they could 6 do. 7 We're saying that you don't stop, that you 8 continue as the program is going on, even after you've 9 exceeded your goal or met it. We're stressing that 10 they a recipient must require its prime contractor to 11 pay its subcontractor for satisfactory performance 12 within a specific number of days from the prime 13 contractor's receipt of payment from the recipient. 14 This means that a prime contractor has to pay 15 its subcontractor in a timely manner. If he is gets 16 paid, then you should require that he pays the 17 subcontractor within 10 or 15 days after he gets paid. 18 I'm not saying 10 or 15 days is the number. We're 19 saying in a timely manner. 20 A recipient must require completion of some 21 new forms to prevent the bait and switch. 22 MS. PATRICK: The actual program forms. 23 MS. BROWN: The new forms, we don't have  24 practice at the subcontract level where a prime 25 contractor could circumvent the spirit of the program, 0110 1 the forms will be completed by either the prime 2 contractor or the DBE subcontractor depending on the 3 applicable forms, and those forms are being developed. 4 They will completed by the end of the rule. 5 Submission of fair share goals: The rule 6 will require that the recipient submit its proposed 7 fair share goals in supporting documentation to the 8 agency  and that's really to your MBE/ WBE coordinator 9  no later than 90 days after its acceptance of the 10 assistance award. 11 Let me say that again. A recipient must  12 is required to submit its proposed fair share 13 objectives and supporting documentation to the agency 14 no laying later than 90 days after its acceptance of 15 the assistance award, and this is new. A recipient 16 will not be able to spend any of its financial 17 assistance award for procument dollars  and that 18 procument category covers: Equipment, construction, 19 services or supplies  until the fair share objective 20 has been met in terms of the negotiations. 21 So within 90 days of your receiving the 22 grant, you need to get in your proposed negotiations to 23 your coordinator for your fair share goals. Otherwise, 24 we can hold up your procurement dollars. 25 MR. ANDREWS: Do we need to  would an 0111 1 applicant have to have a fair share negotiation for 2 each grant or can you just do one that is then good for 3 some period of time? 4 MS. BROWN: We do one. 5 MS. McPEAK: They have to  well, if you're 6 buying similar goods and services with all of your 7 grants then you can have one fair share negotiation. 8 If you're buying different supplies, like for an air 9 program you would buy different supplies than if you 10 were having a water program, then you would have to 11 negotiate those fair share objectives for each program, 12 so it depends and what kinds of things you're buying. 13 MS. BROWN: We want to make sure we're 14 comparing apples with apples. Some states some how 15 they've done it, they've been able to come up with one 16 set of goals across the board. 17 MS. McPEAK: They said for equipment we'll 18 have this goal, for supplies we'll have this goal and 19 so forth. But it is for different classifications. 20 They may have goals for different grants that they do. 21 It's up to the agencies though. 22 MR. ANDREWS: Okay. Thank you. 23 MS. PATRICK: The goals, once they're 24 negotiated, are usually good for three years. 25 MS. BROWN: Right now that's the current 0112 1 practice that's been in place for three years and then 2 we go back and ask you to reassess them, and if you've 3 seen any changes like when we just had the latest 4 census, that new data  that's not new anymore  but 5 when that came out we asked people to go back a check. 6 We leave that  and we go back to you. In 7 some instances people came in and renegotiated. Some 8 of the goals went down, some of them went up. Others 9 said that our goals have not changed. As a result we 10 left that up to you. 11 And I will say that I think a memo went out 12 from me to the coordinators recently, hopefully, that 13 the current goals that are in place are good through 14 ' 04. Okay. 15 Determining the fair share goals: A big 16 change from the current requirements is that a nonstate 17 agency recipient will be able to use a state agency's 18 MBE/ WBE fair share objectives only if it uses the same 19 or substantially similar, relevant geographic market 20 for its procurement for construction, equipment, 21 services or supplies. 22 One of the other things that we have said is, 23 we mentioned this earlier, as tribal governments you 24 have the option to use a state our local jurisdiction 25 goal or you can negotiate directly with EPA for your 0113 1 own trial goal, but that's your option. You don't have 2 to, but that's an option that's made available to you. 3 In calculating the fair share goals, it's a 4 lengthy process, Kimberly, and we spelled that out in 5 the rule. 6 MS. PATRICK: Yeah, I think we kind of 7 already talked about that when we said it's based on 8 the availability analysis and disparity studies. And 9 if the state has done a disparity study, you can look 10 at the numbers from that and negotiate your goals using 11 that and this, that and the third. 12 The actual rule has a little calculation 13 there for how you come up with the numbers. It's 14 really quite, quite simple once you have to numbers 15 from the study or the analysis done, and so we sort of 16 have gone  we talked about that already. I think 17 we're almost looping back around. We're almost there. 18 The next  any other questions about that 19 part, goal negotiations or defining them? We talked 20 about the race, gender conscious efforts. We talked 21 about the record keeping. 22 Exemptions, I don't know if all of you were 23 here when we talked about exemptions before. But there 24 are exemptions built into the proposed rule that would 25 exempt entities from the negotiation of the fair share 0114 1 goal. It is not an exemption from reporting. Remember 2 when I started, reporting is good? We love it. 3 Reporting will never go away, but there are exemptions, 4 would be for any single grant that is under $ 250,000 or 5 an aggregate of grants that are  that total less than 6 $ 250,000 in any one given fiscal year would be exempt 7 from negotiations. 8 We have also exempted TAG grants to tribes 9 and also grants to tribes that can be  that are PPG 10 eligible or that can be rolled into a PPG, that exempts 11 17 categories of grants from negotiations, which I 12 think we briefly mentioned a little bit at the 13 beginning. 14 MS. BROWN: I think we're done. 15 MS. PATRICK: At this point we have looped 16 back around to where we started when we came in at the 17 session. So does anybody have any burning questions 18 comments? We love comments. 19 MS. BROWN: Again, the comment period closes 20 January 20th, so we would solicit you all to go back, 21 take this to your tribes, to your tribal governments to 22 your leaders, to those people that are in your 23 procurement offices and get your comments in to us. 24 The other thing is that this does not kick in 25 until the rule is final. We anticipate that being 0115 1 another year, year and a half off. 2 MS. WARREN: My name is Pat Warren from the 3 Chilcott Indian Village of Cluquan. I was going to ask 4 you about this, the comment period, you said still have 5 several sessions such as today? 6 MR. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. 7 MS. WARREN: And lots of people throughout 8 the Untied States get to comment on this? So is there 9 going to be a chance  is there like a draft proposal 10 that will be out to where we can see what  what all 11 the comments are? 12 MS. PATRICK: A part of the process for this 13 is, when the comment period closes our responsibility 14 is to go back through each and every comment we 15 receive. At that point the comments are categorized 16 into different categories based on the sections in the 17 rule. And so we'll put  lump together all the 18 comments we got regarding certification, all the ones 19 we got regard reporting, all the ones we got regarding 20 the fair share objectives. 21 Me and one other you person have the awesome 22 task of going through those comments, sifting through 23 them and responding  not to each individual comment, 24 but if we get several comments on the same topic we can 25 respond to them as a group and say, where we  that 0116 1 actually goes back on the Federal Register when we come 2 back with the final draft of the rule. We have to 3 discussion how we handle the comments we've received. 4 So let's say we get a million comments saying 5 reporting is bad. We hate it. We have to come back 6 and address those comments as a group or if there's 7 something unique that comes up that's different, we 8 have to address it and say, we took this into 9 consideration. This is what was said to us. These are 10 the reasons why we think reporting is good. We have to 11 sort of respond to it in that way when it comes back 12 out again. 13 So, yes, to answer your question. The 14 comments don't just come in adn go into an abyss and no 15 one ever says anything about them. We're required to 16 show what our responses were to the comments that come 17 in. 18 MS. BROWN: We won't be having meetings, any 19 more meetings though after January 20th. 20 MS. PATRICK: We literally have a meeting on 21 January 20th, so we're doing  we are doing hearings 22 up until the last drop dead day. So yeah, that's the 23 close of the commentary. And I also should say that 24 particularly this wouldn't apply to you guys because 25 we're having this hearing now. Before the hearing that 0117 1 we're having on that last day, we're internally 2 deciding to give the comments coming from  that's 3 going to be in San Francisco  so the comments coming 4 from Region VIII we're giving them a little bit more 5 time to get them in, because it is on the absolute last 6 day of the comment period. It's not very fair to 7 expect people to turn right around and give their comments. 8 And so if a couple others happen to sneak in 9 there, we'll go ahead and look at those as well if 10 they're a little bit late. But we're encouraging 11 people to start now. Because if we start getting 12 comments now, I can actually start my process of 13 categorizing and responding now instead of doing it all 14 at the end, so that helps us out a lot. 15 MS. BAYLESS: Michelle Bayless from the 16 Native Village of Tazlina. Earlier you had mentioned 17 something about the training and learning curve time 18 for tribes to assume this responsibility of procuring. 19 When does that go in to effect, after the ruling or do 20 you want people to start doing this now and start 21 reporting now? 22 MS. BROWN: Reporting is already a 23 requirement. This is not new, and so if you haven't 24 been reporting, you need to be and you need to talk to 25 your MBE/ WBE coordinate, so that is not new. 0118 1 MS. PATRICK: In terms of the new things that 2 the rule is bringing about like the negotiation fair 3 share objects, which is a major new part for the 4 tribes, that's something  once the rule goes final 5 that's when the three year phasing period begins. But 6 we're  during that phasing period our goal is to go 7 out and do as much education as we can, and to get 8 people comfortable with fact that these negotiations 9 are going to have to be done. 10 And the other new points in the rule 11 regarding certification is the issue to give the tribes 12 time to make sure they're up to speed with it before 13 they're held fully responsible for the new rule. 14 MS. BROWN: Now some tribes, once they've 15 done it, may already  they may not have the benefit 16 of the full three years. Some may already be large 17 enough or have the infrastructure in place to go ahead 18 and start doing it, and so we would encourage and are 19 encouraging them to do it. 20 For those that may be much smaller and you 21 don't have the infrastructure we got a three year phase 22 in period. You cannot wait until the last month of the 23 three years to say I'm getting ready to get started. I 24 just want to put that out there, that's not what we're 25 talking about. 0119 1 You're looking at a progression of efforts 2 being made and working with us and we're working with 3 you so that by the time that three year period is up 4 everybody is up and running. I'm not talking about 5 waiting until the last month before  and in that 6 third year say, oh, I think I better get ready to do 7 this. So that means we need a dialog between you and 8 your coordinator and us. We can do that if we want to 9 do that. We're not saying everybody wait until the 10 last minute. 11 MS. BAYLESS: Okay. With that in mind 12 Tazlina has a procurement process that is slowly 13 becoming alive. Is there somebody that we could 14 contact to run that procurement process through to see 15 if it is in line with what is required? 16 MS. BROWN: Start talking to your MBE/ WBE 17 coordinator. She will in turn talk to her attorneys 18 and ours and we can begin to look at that and steer 19 you, okay, and that's a good thing, that's excellent. 20 MS. PATRICK: I have one final thing to say. 21 With regard to the question that I was asked, I cannot 22 get a line to save my life, so I'm sorry about the 23 answer. But I just wanted to point out things like 24 that or question like that  we make mistakes, because 25 reading this I'm realizing that's an error we've made. 0120 1 We didn't make it clear in terms of that entire 2 category of business: How does that net worth 3 requirement apply? 4 As you say it applies, but I'm like wait a 5 minute. It can't apply. It doesn't make good common 6 sense. But things like that are the things we need you 7 guys to help with because we could read this thing 8 1,000 times and the question never came up in our minds 9 in terms of how that works. 10 My personal suggestion may be to comment 11 anonymously myself to my own rule. But my personal 12 thing would probably be to say that it doesn't make 13 much sense to apply a personal net worth requirement to 14 a large entity that owns  that owns a particular 15 business. 16 Because we  within the rule we talk about 17 publicly traded companies. Whereas, we're saying that 18 if any one individual in the public traded company has 19 that  meets those requirements, then that puts them 20 in the correct  they're eligible for to be 21 certified. 22 But then in another paragraph we're saying 23 that if you're a joint venture, that their personal net 24 worth requirement doesn't apply. I'm confused and so 25 if I'm confused, I know you guys are confused and 0121 1 that's something we need to work out and find a good 2 answer for. 3 MR. ANDREWS: To follow up on that. Perhaps 4 the wording " individual" is the problem as well as 5 specifically, because that would seem to look towards a 6 small, privately owned business. I raised the issue of 7 a tribe, that really  the term " individual" doesn't 8 fit there and then to whom would you apply the $ 750,000 9 net worth? 10 The other issue that I think you kind of 11 touched on, but I thought it might be kind of good to 12 clarify it on the record, would be a publicly owned 13 company, who would be the individual? You know, it 14 isn't owned that way. 15 MS. PATRICK: That one is actually addressed 16 in here. There's actually language in here that 17 specifically talks about this. Ownership and control: 18 The entity must be at least 51 percent owned by a 19 socially, economically disadvantaged individual or in 20 the case of a publicly traded, at least 51 percent of 21 the stock must be owned by one or more socially and 22 economically disadvantaged individual, and the 23 management and daily business operations of the 24 business concerned must be controlled by such 25 individual. So it speaks to the publicly traded 0122 1 company, but  2 MR. ANDREWS: But my point is you still have 3 the problem of  maybe I'm misunderstanding the 4 language there from having just heard it  but I  5 let's say you had a publically traded company that, I 6 don't know, five or six individuals who were  who 7 came up to the DBE standards owned 51 percent, that 8 would qualify that way. But then do you take the net 9 worth of all of those individuals or do you just take 10 the stock ownership that they own in that company? I 11 mean, the way it's written it's kind mirky, so that's 12 the kind of thing that needs to be addressed. 13 MS. BROWN: Thank you. We'll take that under 14 advisement. 15 MR. ANDREWS: That was kind of a side thing. 16 The important thing to me is the tribal ownership aspect. 17 MS. DAVISON: Jeanette, I don't think SBA 18 rules addressed that. 19 MS. BROWN: We'll take that under advisement 20 and then respond to it. But it's things like that we 21 want you to go through and take a look at the ruling, 22 gives us comment. 23 MS. BROWN: Okay. I think that concludes the meeting. 24 ( Thereupon, the public hearing was concluded 25 at 3: 00 p. m.) 0123 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 I, DAVID E. HIX, Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter, do hereby certify: 4 That the foregoing proceedings were taken 5 before me at the time and place therein set forth; 6 That the testimony and all objections made 7 were recorded stenographically by me and were 8 thereafter transcribed by me or under my direction; 9 That the foregoing is a true and correct 10 record of testimony given, to the best of my ability; 11 That I am not a relative or employee of any 12 attorney or of any of the parties, nor am I financially 13 interested in the action. 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 15 hand and seal this 20th day of October, 2003. 16 17 DAVID E. HIX, C. S. R. # 2271 18 816 Sherman Avenue Suite 7 19 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 20 21 22 23 24 25


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65013-65015]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22139]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0344; FRL-10015-12-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina: Permits Requiring Public
Participation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Air Quality, on July 10,
2019. This SIP revision seeks to modify the State's permitting program
public participation procedures by adding two types of minor source
permits to the list of permits that must undergo public participation
and by making minor edits. EPA is proposing to approve this revision
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0344 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, 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. Mr. Akers can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at
(404) 562-9089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    North Carolina has SIP-approved permitting regulations at 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02Q, Section .0300--
Construction and Operation Permits. These regulations include
requirements for obtaining certain construction and operating permits,
including applicability provisions and administrative procedures.
NCDEQ's July 10, 2019, SIP revision seeks to make changes to the SIP-
approved list of construction and operating permits which are required
to undergo public participation at Section .0306, Permits Requiring
Public Participation. The list in Section .0306 includes major source
permits as well as certain types of minor source permits.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    NCDEQ's July 10, 2019, SIP revision transmits changes to Section
.0306, Permits Requiring Public Participation.\1\ As described below,
the changes to Section .0306 add two types of permits subject to public
participation and make

several minor edits, including the removal of obsolete regulatory
references. The permits listed in Section .0306 must undergo public
notice for comments with the opportunity for the public to request a
public hearing. Pursuant to Section .0307(d), Public Participation
Procedures, the public comment period for these permits must last for
at least 30 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State submitted the SIP revision following the
readoption of several air regulations, including .0306, pursuant to
North Carolina's 10-year regulatory readoption process at North
Carolina General Statute 150B-21.3A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The July 10, 2019, SIP revision adds two types of permits to the
list of permits which must undergo public participation. First,
.0306(a)(10) is added, which requires public notice of permits for
sources seeking an exemption from the 20 percent opacity standard in
paragraph (d) of 15A NCAC 02D .0521, Control of Visible Emissions,
through the process at Section .0521, paragraph (f). Under paragraph
(f), a source can comply with the 40 percent opacity standard in
paragraph (c) instead of the 20 percent opacity standard in paragraph
(d) only if the owner or operator of the source: (1) Demonstrates
compliance with applicable mass emissions standards for particulate
matter; (2) demonstrates that emissions allowed up to the opacity
standards under paragraph (c) will not violate any National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, and (3) applies for a revised permit. Paragraph (f)
also requires that source testing be submitted within 90 days of the
application for a revised permit.
    Next, the SIP revision adds .0306(a)(11), which requires public
notice of permits for sources using alternative monitoring procedures
or methodologies pursuant to 15A NCAC 02D .0606, Sources Covered by
Appendix P of 40 CFR part 51,\2\ at paragraph (g) \3\ or .0608, Other
Large Coal or Residual Oil Burners, at paragraph (g).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Minimum
Emission Monitoring Requirements, set minimum continuous emissions
monitoring requirements for the following source categories unless
they are subject to a performance standard at 40 CFR part 60, or in
limited other circumstances: (1) Fossil fuel-fired steam generators;
(2) fluid bed catalytic cracking units; (3) sulfuric acid plants;
and (4) nitric acid plants.
    \3\ The SIP-approved version of Section .0606(g) states that the
``owner or operator of the source may request to use a different
procedure or methodology than that required by this Rule if one of
the conditions identified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 3.9
exists. The person requesting to use a different procedure or
methodology shall submit the request to the Director along with a
description of the different procedure or methodology proposed to be
used, an explanation of why the procedure or methodology required by
this Rule will not work, and a showing that the proposed procedure
or methodology is equivalent to the procedure or methodology being
replaced. The Director shall approve the use of this procedure or
methodology if he finds that one of the conditions identified in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 3.9 exists, that the procedure or
methodology required by this Rule will not work, and that the
proposed procedure or methodology is equivalent to the procedure or
methodology that it will replace.''
    \4\ The SIP-approved version of Section .0608(g) states that the
``owner or operator of the source may request to use a different
procedure or methodology than that required by this Rule if one of
the conditions identified in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 3.9
exists. The person requesting to use a different procedure or
methodology shall submit the request to the Director along with a
description of the different procedure or methodology proposed to be
used, an explanation of why the procedure or methodology required by
this Rule will not work, and a showing that the proposed procedure
or methodology is equivalent to the procedure or methodology being
replaced. The Director shall approve the use of this procedure or
methodology if he finds that one of the conditions identified in 40
CFR part 51, Appendix P, Section 3.9 exists, that the procedure or
methodology required by this Rule will not work, and that the
proposed procedure or methodology is equivalent to the procedure or
methodology that it will replace.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP revision also contains minor edits to .0306,\5\ including
removal of obsolete cross-references to rules in the list of permits
subject to public participation and renumbering the SIP-approved
version of subparagraph (a)(10) to (a)(12).6 7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ North Carolina's April 1, 2018 rule revision also removed
paragraph (b) from the state-effective version of the rule. This
paragraph required a 30-day public notice period for permits that
placed a physical or operational limitation on a facility to avoid
title V requirements under 15 NCAC 02Q 0500. Furthermore, the
revised rule renumbered paragraph (c) of the state-effective version
of the rule to paragraph (b). However, these changes are not before
EPA for action because (1) the version of paragraph (b) that the
State removed in the April 1, 2018 rule revision is not in the SIP,
and (2) the version of paragraph (b) in the SIP is identical to the
version of paragraph (b) in the April 1, 2018 rule. See 67 FR 64990
(October 22, 2002).
    \6\ North Carolina deleted the reference to paragraph (c)(2)(B)
of 15A NCAC 02D .1204, Sewage Sludge Incinerators, because the State
removed (c)(2)(B) from the rule. The State had previously required
permits issued under paragraph (c)(2)(B) to undergo public
participation because that paragraph allowed incinerators subject to
the rule comply with an alternative emission limit in lieu of the
operation-based limitation in (c)(1)(A) if the owner or operator
provided a demonstration that the ambient air quality standards for
particulate matter would not be violated. There is no longer an
option to comply with the alternative emission limit, and therefore,
the reference is obsolete.
    \7\ North Carolina deleted the reference to 15A NCAC 02D .0936,
Graphic Arts, because the State repealed this rule and superseded it
with new rules. Accordingly, North Carolina updated 02Q .0306 to
reference the replacement rules at 15A NCAC 02D .0961, Offset
Lithographic Printing and Letterpress Printing, and 15A NCAC 02D
.0965, Flexible Package Printing such that public participation is
required for permits with a ``limitation on the quantity of solvent-
borne ink that may be used by a printing unit or printing system''
under .0961 or .0965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the two additions to the list of
permits requiring public participation pursuant to CAA section 110 as a
SIP-strengthening measure and 40 CFR 51.161. EPA is proposing to
approve the remaining changes to Section .0306 because they are minor
edits that do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference 15A NCAC Subchapter 02Q, Section .0306, Permits Requiring
Public Participation, state effective April 1, 2018, which expands the
types of permits which require public participation and makes minor
edits to the rule. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to 15A NCAC 02Q .0306,
Permits Requiring Public Participation, that add two types of permits
to the list of permits that must undergo public participation and make
minor edits, including the removal of obsolete regulatory references.
EPA is proposing to approve these changes for the reasons discussed
above.

V. 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
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 30, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-22139 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


NM 2 Summary Summary: On Monday, March 10, 1997, Jim O'Leary ( EPA), Kristina Alcorn ( SAIC) and Úna Connolly ( SAIC) visited NM 2, a Navy Frigate. We were escorted by the Base Environmental Coordinator, a LTJG, a LCDR, and a Bosen's Mate. During our visit, the frigate was undergoing a major overhaul that involved stripping the exterior paint and repainting to improve the ship's ability to avoid radar detection. No solvents were on board or being used during our visit and it was not possible to simulate solvent usage. We were able to perform a container survey and those results are contained in this report.

Existing Regulatory Permits: N/ A Employees: 246 Waste Disposal Costs: N/ A Hazardous Waste Generating Activities: Ship Maintenance Generator Status: LQG Extraction Techniques: None Solvents: Solvents are used exclusively in painting operations. The planned maintenance system ( PMS) calls for PDS 80 ( trichloroethane) to be used in this operation. This solvent is not kept on board, but requisitioned when needed. General detergents rather than solvents are used for cleaning.

Wipers: The frigate uses disposable rags. Rags weighed to determine average weights included denim jeans, cotton/ polyester shirts, and sweat shirt material. The amount of disposable rags used depends on whether or not the ship was deployed or docked. LTJG Lex Walker estimated that when deployed, they use 100 bales (@ 50 pounds per bale). Average weight: 91 grams ( 71.3, 62.2, 86.7, 143.8)

Ambient Temperature: 68.6 degrees F Container Survey  No. 1 Wiper Type: Disposable Rags used with PD6 80 and Grease Average Weight of 1 Unused Wiper: 91 grams Wiper # Location in Container Initial Weight Weight After 22 Hours 1 bottom 147.3 151.3 2 bottom 197.2 201.9 3 middle 170.3 108.9 4 middle 210.1 165.4 5 top 145.0 140.9 6 top 147.7 147.6 Methods/ Type of On site Storage: Type of Container: Red step can Size of Container: 21 gallon Number of Wipers in Container at Time of Sampling: approx. 50 Last Time Container Emptied: 3/ 6/ 97 Comments/ Notes:

Date/ Time of Data Collection: initial weighing 3/ 10/ 97, 10: 50, second weighing 3/ 11 8: 45 a. m. Personnel Participating: Industry: Base Environmental Coordinator; a LTJG; a LCDR, and a Bosen's Mate EPA: Jim O'leary Contractor: Kristina Alcorn, Úna Connolly Appendix E Hand Wringing Experimental Data HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

10.48 WORKHORSE base weight MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

28.80 27.40 18.32 1.40 7.64 30.20 28.90 19.72 1.30 6.59 30.50 29.60 20.02 0.90 4.50 29.70 29.20 19.22 0.50 2.60 30.60 30.00 20.12 0.60 2.98 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

31.00 30.20 20.52 0.80 3.90 31.30 30.90 20.82 0.40 1.92 30.50 29.90 20.02 0.60 3.00 31.20 31.00 20.72 0.20 0.97 31.00 30.90 20.52 0.10 0.49 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

29.30 28.30 18.82 1.00 5.31 29.80 28.70 19.32 1.10 5.69 30.00 28.70 19.52 1.30 6.66 29.70 28.70 19.22 1.00 5.20 29.80 28.70 19.32 1.10 5.69 3 Component Mixture ( 20% VMP Naphtha, 50% Isopropyl Alcohol, 30% MEK) Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

30.40 29.50 19.92 0.90 4.52 29.70 29.30 19.22 0.40 2.08 29.50 29.00 19.02 0.50 2.63 Isopropyl Alcohol Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

30.10 28.90 19.62 1.20 6.12 30.50 27.70 20.02 2.80 13.99 30.30 30.00 19.82 0.30 1.51 M e t h y l e n e Chloride Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

30.10 29.10 19.62 1.00 5.10 29.20 28.20 18.72 1.00 5.34 28.50 28.00 18.02 0.50 2.77 Wt. of Solvent RemainingAfter Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removal Efficiency (%) 16.92 10.90 16.50 97.52 18.42 10.60 18.30 99.35 19.12 10.40 19.20 100.42 18.72 10.50 18.70 99.89 19.52 10.50 19.50 99.90 Wt. of Solvent RemainingAfter Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removal Efficiency (%) 19.72 10.40 19.80 100.41 20.42 10.30 20.60 100.88 19.42 10.40 19.50 100.41 20.52 10.20 20.80 101.36 20.42 10.40 20.50 100.39 Wt. of Solvent RemainingAfter Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removal Efficiency (%) 17.82 10.40 17.90 100.45 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 KIMTEX base weight 7.42 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

22.70 19.00 15.28 3.70 24.21 23.10 18.60 15.68 4.50 28.70 23.40 18.30 15.98 5.10 31.91 21.10 19.10 13.68 2.00 14.62 22.40 18.00 14.98 4.40 29.37 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

22.50 19.20 22.50 3.30 14.67 22.50 20.20 22.50 2.30 10.22 22.60 20.20 22.60 2.40 10.62 22.40 19.00 22.40 3.40 15.18 22.50 19.60 22.50 2.90 12.89 MEK (~ 0.75X concn.) Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

15.00 11.00 7.58 4.00 52.77 13.50 10.70 6.08 2.80 46.05 12.60 10.70 5.18 1.90 36.68 14.10 9.20 6.68 4.90 73.35 11.10 9.50 3.68 1.60 43.48 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

20.90 19.40 13.48 1.50 11.13 20.30 18.90 12.88 1.40 10.87 19.10 16.90 11.68 2.20 18.84 21.90 19.70 14.48 2.20 15.19 20.80 19.70 13.38 1.10 8.22 3 Component Mixture ( 20% VMP Naphtha, 50% Isopropyl Alcohol, 30% MEK) Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

21.60 19.80 14.18 1.80 12.69 21.60 19.80 14.18 1.80 12.69 21.30 19.30 13.88 2.00 14.41 Isopropyl Alcohol Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

21.40 18.50 13.98 2.90 20.74 21.10 17.90 13.68 3.20 23.39 21.60 19.70 14.18 1.90 13.40 Methylene Chloride Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

20.60 18.90 13.18 1.70 12.90 19.40 18.70 11.98 0.70 5.84 19.60 18.20 12.18 1.40 11.49 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed R e m o v a l Ef f iciency (%) 11.58 xx xx xx 11.18 7.20 11.40 101.97 10.88 7.50 10.80 99.26 11.68 7.50 11.60 99.32 10.58 7.50 10.50 99.24 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed R e m o v a l Ef f iciency (%) 11.78 7.40 11.80 100.17 12.78 7.00 13.20 103.29 12.78 7.10 13.10 102.50 11.58 7.60 11.40 98.45 12.18 6.90 12.70 104.27 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed R e m o v a l Ef f iciency (%) 11.98 7.40 12.00 100.17 11.48 7.30 11.60 101.05 9.48 7.60 9.30 98.10 12.28 7.40 12.30 100.16 12.28 7.30 12.40 100.98 KIMWIPE base weight 2.80 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

7.70 7.20 4.90 0.50 10.20 8.00 6.90 5.20 1.10 21.15 8.10 6.80 5.30 1.30 24.53 8.10 7.10 5.30 1.00 18.87 7.80 7.00 5.00 0.80 16.00 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

7.60 6.70 4.80 0.90 18.75 8.60 7.00 5.80 1.60 27.59 8.20 7.10 5.40 1.10 20.37 8.50 7.10 5.70 1.40 24.56 8.70 7.20 5.90 1.50 25.42 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

8.80 6.70 6.00 2.10 35.00 8.70 6.50 5.90 2.20 37.29 8.70 7.10 5.90 1.60 27.12 7.30 6.70 4.50 0.60 13.33 8.70 7.10 5.90 1.60 27.12 3 Component Mixture ( 20% VMP Naphtha, 50% Isopropyl Alcohol, 30% MEK) Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

7.90 6.80 5.10 1.10 21.57 8.30 7.00 5.50 1.30 23.64 7.90 6.60 5.10 1.30 25.49 Isopropyl Alcohol Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

12.30 8.50 9.50 3.80 40.00 12.60 8.90 9.80 3.70 37.76 12.90 8.70 10.10 4.20 41.58 Methylene Chloride Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

7.10 6.70 4.30 0.40 9.30 7.60 7.10 4.80 0.50 10.42 7.50 6.90 4.70 0.60 12.77 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%) 4.40 2.80 4.40 100.00 4.10 2.80 4.10 100.00 4.00 2.80 4.00 100.00 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 4.20 2.70 4.30 102.38 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%) 3.90 2.90 3.80 97.44 4.20 2.90 4.10 97.62 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 4.30 2.90 4.20 97.67 4.40 2.90 4.30 97.73 Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%) 3.90 2.80 3.90 100.00 3.70 2.80 3.70 100.00 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 3.90 2.80 3.90 100.00 4.30 2.90 4.20 97.67 DISPOSABLE CLOTH base weight n/ a Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 67.00 58.90 42.00 8.10 19.29 25.00 flannel shirting 96.60 88.40 63.10 8.20 13.00 33.50 poly/ cotton knit 152.90 151.60 74.20 1.30 1.75 78.70 fleece 46.40 45.70 22.60 0.70 3.10 23.80 towelling 94.60 93.70 45.70 0.90 1.97 48.90 table linens MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 112.10 105.60 73.30 6.50 8.87 38.80 flannel shirting 101.50 94.00 67.00 7.50 11.19 34.50 poly/ cotton knit 75.40 74.80 37.60 0.60 1.60 37.80 fleece 120.20 119.30 58.70 0.90 1.53 61.50 towelling 116.70 115.80 56.50 0.90 1.59 60.20 table linens VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 87.80 73.20 59.30 14.60 24.62 28.50 flannel shirting 112.00 100.10 71.80 11.90 16.57 40.20 poly/ cotton knit 90.70 89.00 48.40 1.70 3.51 42.30 fleece 222.10 202.00 103.70 20.10 19.38 118.40 towelling 109.50 104.70 56.20 4.80 8.54 53.30 table linens 3 Component Mixture ( 20% VMP Naphtha, 50% Isopropyl Alcohol, 30% MEK)

Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 97.80 91.10 64.10 6.70 10.45 33.70 poly/ cotton knit 113.50 104.90 73.40 8.60 11.72 40.10 poly/ cotton knit 128.20 125.70 70.70 2.50 3.54 57.50 poly/ cotton knit Isopropyl Alcohol Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 103.80 63.60 58.90 40.20 68.25 44.90 broadcloth 107.70 89.90 55.90 17.80 31.84 51.80 flannel 120.90 86.60 72.30 34.30 47.44 48.60 flannel Methylene Chloride Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 115.90 85.90 62.20 30.00 48.23 53.70 table linen 44.00 40.80 28.30 3.20 11.31 15.70 shirting 105.00 104.50 66.40 0.50 0.75 38.60 flannel LAUNDERABLE CLOTH, 2X, Handwringing base weight n/ a Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

73.00 68.20 47.40 4.80 10.13 25.60 81.60 73.70 53.20 7.90 14.85 28.40 72.40 67.50 45.90 4.90 10.68 26.50 72.60 69.60 45.90 3.00 6.54 26.70 70.70 64.50 46.50 6.20 13.33 24.20 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

72.80 71.50 45.80 1.30 2.84 27.00 73.10 71.20 46.00 1.90 4.13 27.10 73.70 71.70 47.90 2.00 4.18 25.80 76.80 72.40 49.80 4.40 8.84 27.00 71.80 67.90 46.40 3.90 8.41 25.40 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

74.70 71.70 49.20 3.00 6.10 25.50 81.50 77.50 55.10 4.00 7.26 26.40 73.40 65.70 48.30 7.70 15.94 25.10 69.40 66.80 44.80 2.60 5.80 24.60 79.80 67.50 55.10 12.30 22.32 24.70 3 Component Mixture Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

73.60 68.70 47.70 4.90 10.27 25.90 71.30 66.80 47.30 4.50 9.51 24.00 76.80 71.40 50.40 5.40 10.71 26.40 Isopropyl Alcohol Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

72.30 63.00 46.70 9.30 19.91 25.60 72.70 61.30 47.40 11.40 24.05 25.30 70.80 59.90 45.80 10.90 23.80 25.00 Methylene Chloride Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

64.80 60.10 39.30 4.70 11.96 25.50 77.00 74.50 50.30 2.50 4.97 26.70 75.20 73.80 49.40 1.40 2.83 25.80 HAND WRINGING, [ 0.5X] WORKHORSE base weight 10.48 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

16.00 15.80 5.52 0.20 3.62 15.60 15.40 5.12 0.20 3.91 16.10 15.90 5.62 0.20 3.56 15.70 15.50 5.22 0.20 3.83 15.90 15.70 5.42 0.20 3.69 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

15.80 15.70 5.32 0.10 1.88 15.50 15.50 5.02 0.00 0.00 15.70 15.70 5.22 0.00 0.00 15.20 15.20 4.72 0.00 0.00 16.20 16.00 5.72 0.20 3.50 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

15.50 14.80 5.02 0.70 13.94 15.40 14.70 4.92 0.70 14.23 15.70 14.80 5.22 0.90 17.24 15.90 15.00 5.42 0.90 16.61 15.20 14.70 4.72 0.50 10.59 KIMTEX base weight 8.90 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

9.90 9.80 1.00 0.10 10.04 10.10 10.10 1.20 0.00 0.00 10.40 10.30 1.50 0.10 6.68 10.40 10.40 1.50 0.00 0.00 11.30 11.30 2.40 0.00 0.00 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

10.40 10.30 1.50 0.10 6.68 9.80 9.60 0.90 0.20 22.32 10.60 10.60 1.70 0.00 0.00 11.10 10.90 2.20 0.20 9.11 10.00 9.90 1.10 0.10 9.12 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

10.80 10.60 1.90 0.20 10.55 9.90 9.70 1.00 0.20 20.08 11.50 11.30 2.60 0.20 7.70 10.20 10.00 1.30 0.20 15.43 10.00 9.80 1.10 0.20 18.25 KIMWIPE base weight 2.80 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

4.60 4.40 1.80 0.20 11.11 4.60 4.40 1.80 0.20 11.11 4.40 4.30 1.60 0.10 6.25 4.40 4.30 1.60 0.10 6.25 4.60 4.40 1.80 0.20 11.11 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

4.90 4.70 2.10 0.20 9.52 4.50 4.40 1.70 0.10 5.88 4.70 4.50 1.90 0.20 10.53 4.70 4.40 1.90 0.30 15.79 4.60 4.30 1.80 0.30 16.67 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%)

4.90 4.90 2.10 0.00 0.00 4.30 4.20 1.50 0.10 6.67 4.40 4.30 1.60 0.10 6.25 4.30 4.20 1.50 0.10 6.67 4.20 4.20 1.40 0.00 0.00 DISPOSABLE CLOTH base weight n/ a Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 16.80 16.50 5.00 0.30 6.00 11.80 flannel 77.00 76.20 24.60 0.80 3.25 52.40 towel 174.90 168.10 55.80 6.80 12.19 119.10 towel 63.30 62.90 20.60 0.40 1.94 42.70 flannel 50.70 50.20 16.00 0.50 3.13 34.70 sheet MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 76.70 75.90 24.90 0.80 3.21 51.80 flannel 79.70 78.80 26.00 0.90 3.46 53.70 table linen 92.20 91.70 30.10 0.50 1.66 62.10 terry cloth 79.40 78.90 20.40 0.50 2.45 59.00 fleece 59.80 59.30 19.70 0.50 2.54 40.10 tricot VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth 50.50 50.40 16.30 0.10 0.61 34.20 sheet 117.80 117.70 38.60 0.10 0.26 79.20 flannel 36.40 36.40 12.00 0.00 0.00 24.40 towel 43.00 43.00 14.10 0.00 0.00 28.90 flannel 99.60 99.50 45.10 0.10 0.22 54.50 table linen LAUNDERABLE CLOTH, 0.5X, Handwringing base weight n/ a Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

41.90 41.40 13.60 0.50 3.68 28.30 39.60 38.40 13.40 1.20 8.96 26.20 41.70 40.30 13.70 1.40 10.22 28.00 36.80 36.30 11.60 0.50 4.31 25.20 40.40 40.10 13.90 0.30 2.16 26.50 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

43.20 42.50 14.20 0.70 4.93 29.00 37.50 37.00 12.30 0.50 4.07 25.20 38.00 37.50 12.70 0.50 3.94 25.30 41.10 40.70 13.50 0.40 2.96 27.60 40.40 40.00 13.20 0.40 3.03 27.20 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. after removal Wt. of Solvent added ( g) Wt. of solvent removed ( g) Removal efficiency (%) Weight of cloth ( g)

44.40 44.30 15.00 0.10 0.67 29.40 42.80 42.60 14.30 0.20 1.40 28.50 43.30 43.20 15.10 0.10 0.66 28.20 37.00 37.00 12.40 0.00 0.00 24.60 41.40 41.30 13.60 0.10 0.74 27.80 Hand Wringing, 2X Anova: Two Way Without Replication Summary Count Sum Average Variance Acetone 5.00 500.02 100.00 0.40 MEK 5.00 498.36 99.67 2.51 VM& P Naphtha 5.00 497.89 99.58 1.11 Kimwipes 3.00 298.10 99.37 1.44 Workhorse 3.00 299.89 99.96 0.43 Kimtex 3.00 301.77 100.59 0.99 Launderable 3.00 299.31 99.77 2.78 Disp. Cloth 3.00 297.20 99.07 0.62 Analysis of Variance Source of Variation SS df MS F P value F crit Rows 0.50 2.00 0.25 0.17 0.85 4.46 Columns 4.10 4.00 1.03 0.68 0.62 3.84 Error 12.02 8.00 1.50 Total 16.62 14.00 Appendix F Air Drying Experimental Data HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

28.80 16.92 10.90 16.50 97.52 30.20 18.42 10.60 18.30 99.35 30.50 19.12 10.40 19.20 100.42 29.70 18.72 10.50 18.70 99.89 30.60 19.52 10.50 19.50 99.90 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

31.00 19.72 10.40 19.80 100.41 31.30 20.42 10.30 20.60 100.88 30.50 19.42 10.40 19.50 100.41 31.20 20.52 10.20 20.80 101.36 31.00 20.42 10.40 20.50 100.39 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

29.30 17.82 10.40 17.90 100.45 29.80 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 30.00 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 29.70 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 29.80 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE KIMTEX base weight VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

22.70 11.58 xx xx xx 23.10 11.18 7.20 11.40 101.97 23.40 10.88 7.50 10.80 99.26 21.10 11.68 7.50 11.60 99.32 22.40 10.58 7.50 10.50 99.24 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

28.80 16.92 10.90 16.50 97.52 30.20 18.42 10.60 18.30 99.35 30.50 19.12 10.40 19.20 100.42 29.70 18.72 10.50 18.70 99.89 30.60 19.52 10.50 19.50 99.90 VM& P Naphtha HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

31.00 19.72 10.40 19.80 100.41 31.30 20.42 10.30 20.60 100.88 30.50 19.42 10.40 19.50 100.41 31.20 20.52 10.20 20.80 101.36 31.00 20.42 10.40 20.50 100.39 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

29.30 17.82 10.40 17.90 100.45 29.80 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 30.00 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 29.70 18.22 10.60 18.10 99.34 29.80 18.22 10.50 18.20 99.89 KIMTEX base weight VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

22.70 11.58 xx xx xx 23.10 11.18 7.20 11.40 101.97 23.40 10.88 7.50 10.80 99.26 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

21.10 11.68 7.50 11.60 99.32 22.40 10.58 7.50 10.50 99.24 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

22.50 11.78 7.40 11.80 100.17 22.50 12.78 7.00 13.20 103.29 22.60 12.78 7.10 13.10 102.50 22.40 11.58 7.60 11.40 98.45 22.50 12.18 6.90 12.70 104.27 Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

20.90  9.30 7.40 12.00  129.03 20.30  9.80 7.30 11.60  118.37 19.10  11.80 7.60 9.30  78.81 21.90  9.00 7.40 12.30  136.67 20.80  9.00 7.30 12.40  137.78 KIMWIPE Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

7.70 4.40 2.80 4.40 100.00 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

8.00 4.10 2.80 4.10 100.00 8.10 4.00 2.80 4.00 100.00 8.10 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 7.80 4.20 2.70 4.30 102.38 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

7.60 3.90 2.90 3.80 97.44 8.60 4.20 2.90 4.10 97.62 8.20 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 8.50 4.30 2.90 4.20 97.67 8.70 4.40 2.90 4.30 97.73 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

8.80 3.90 2.80 3.90 100.00 8.70 3.70 2.80 3.70 100.00 8.70 4.30 2.80 4.30 100.00 7.30 3.90 2.80 3.90 100.00 8.70 4.30 2.90 4.20 97.67 DISPOSABLE CLOTH Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

67.00 25.00 flannel shirting 33.90 24.70 34.20 100.88 96.60 33.50 poly/ cotton knit 54.90 34.10 54.30 98.91 152.90 78.70 fleece 72.90 78.60 73.00 100.14 46.40 23.80 towelling 21.90 24.40 21.30 97.26 94.60 48.90 table linens 44.80 49.80 43.90 97.99 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%) HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

112.10 38.80 flannel shirting 66.80 39.40 66.20 99.10 101.50 34.50 poly/ cotton knit 59.50 34.70 59.30 99.66 75.40 37.80 fleece 37.00 38.80 36.00 97.30 120.20 61.50 towelling 57.80 62.70 56.60 97.92 116.70 60.20 table linens 55.60 61.60 54.20 97.48 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) type of cloth Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

87.80 28.50 flannel shirting 44.70 28.40 44.80 100.22 112.00 40.20 poly/ cotton knit 59.90 39.90 60.20 100.50 90.70 42.30 fleece 46.70 42.30 46.70 100.00 222.10 118.40 towelling 83.60 118.90 83.10 99.40 109.50 53.30 table linens 51.40 53.70 51.00 99.22 LAUNDERABLE CLOTH, 2X, Handwringing Acetone Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

73.00 25.60 42.60 23.50 44.70 104.93 81.60 28.40 45.30 24.30 49.40 109.05 72.40 26.50 41.00 27.20 40.30 98.29 72.60 26.70 42.90 27.30 42.30 98.60 70.70 24.20 40.30 27.30 37.20 92.31 MEK Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

72.80 27.00 44.50 26.40 45.10 101.35 73.10 27.10 44.10 26.90 44.30 100.45 HAND WRINGING, [ 2X]

WORKHORSE ( cont.)

73.70 25.80 45.90 27.80 43.90 95.64 76.80 27.00 45.40 22.90 49.50 109.03 71.80 25.40 42.50 26.40 41.50 97.65 VM& P Naphtha Wt. w/ solvent Weight of cloth ( g) Wt. of Solvent Remaining After Air Drying Wt. of Solvent Removed Removal Efficiency (%)

74.70 25.50 46.20 25.80 45.90 99.35 81.50 26.40 51.10 28.00 49.50 96.87 73.40 25.10 40.60 26.40 39.30 96.80 69.40 24.60 42.20 25.70 41.10 97.39 79.80 24.70 42.80 25.20 42.30 98.83 Appendix G Closed Container Experiments Screen  bottom Drum Experiment Acetone Kimtex base weight 7.42 Workhorse base weight 10.48 Disposable Cloth wt, top to bo wt. of solvent wt. before wt. after ty 28.5 21.08 wt, top to wt. Sol. top 26.9 54.4 r 26.8 19.38 20.78 20.3 9.82 middle 38.4 59.5 g 29.3 21.88 22.8 12.32 10.59 bottom 49.4 80 w 28.9 21.48 20.1 9.62 30 22.58 21.98 20.8 10.32 29.3 21.88 23.7 13.22 12.85 26.5 19.08 25.5 15.02 27.5 20.08 20.51 25.8 15.32 29.8 22.38 27.1 16.62 16.19 30.8 23.38 27.1 16.62 30.2 22.78 22.18 27.8 20.38 31.3 23.88 28.9 21.48 22.91 30.8 23.38 31.7 24.28 28.5 21.08 23.01 31.1 23.68 Launderables base weight 26.28 Kimwipes 47 20.72 3 56.8 30.52 3 62.7 36.42 3.6 60.5 34.22 3.9 57.8 31.52 3.4 63 36.72 3.7 60.7 34.42 4 55.7 29.42 4 54.6 28.32 4.2 57 30.72 4 58.4 32.12 61.4 35.12 68.7 42.42 58.8 32.52 63.6 37.32 VM& P Naphtha Kimtex Workhorse Disposable Cloth 28.4 25.2 54.5 g 31.2 28 67.4 r 27.1 25.4 110.1 w 25 27.8 26.1 28 36 29.7 30.7 35 33.2 32 27.8 Launderables Kimwipes 59.6 3.8 64.2 3.9 59.7 4 55.6 4 55.2 4.4 60.7 4.2 56.2 4.4 53.4 4.1 58.4 5.2 60.3 4.8 56.6 5.2 6.9 4.5


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66073]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20906]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-813, OMB Control No. 3235-0765]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 498A

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``Paperwork Reduction Act'') (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collections of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 498A under the Securities Act permits a person to satisfy its
prospectus delivery obligations under Section 5(b)(2) of the Securities
Act for a contract by: (1) sending or giving to new investors key
information contained in a variable contract statutory prospectus in
the form of an initial summary prospectus; (2) sending or giving to
existing investors each year a brief description of certain changes to
the contract, and a subset of the information in the initial summary
prospectus, in the form of an updating summary prospectus; and (3)
providing the statutory prospectus and other materials online. Rule
498A considers a person to have met its prospectus delivery obligations
for any portfolio companies associated with a variable contract if the
portfolio company prospectuses are posted online. Under the rule, a
registrant (or the financial intermediary distributing the variable
contract) relying on the rule must send the variable contract statutory
prospectus (that statutory prospectus must be filed as part of
registration statement on Form N-3, N-4, or N-6, as applicable) and
other materials to an investor in paper or electronic format upon
request.
    Based on current EDGAR data, 82% of variable contracts that filed
annual updates to their registration statements filed at least one
summary prospectus under rule 498A. In the aggregate, the Commission
staff estimates the total annual hour burden to comply with Rule 498A
to be 7,634 hours, at an internal time cost equivalent of $2,337,471,
and a total annual external cost burden of $9,094,866.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on
communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study. Responses will
not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by November 27, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: September 21, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-20906 Filed 9-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33515-33516]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0417]

Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San
Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced for the
location identified in Item number 1 of table 1 to Sec.  165.1191 from
10 a.m. until 11:15 p.m. on June 25, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Anthony Solares, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
established in 33 CFR 165.1191 table 1, item number 1 for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks Display from 10 a.m. on June 25, 2021, until
11:15 p.m. on June 25, 2021. The Coast Guard will enforce a 100-foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge, from surface to bottom, during
the loading, transit of the fireworks barge from the loading location
to the display location, and arrival at the display location, and until
the start of the fireworks display. From 10:00 a.m. on June 25, 2021
until 8 p.m. on June 25, 2021, the fireworks barge will be loading
pyrotechnics from Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge
will remain at the loading location until its transit to the display
location. From 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. on June 25, 2021, the loaded
fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier
48 in approximate position 37[deg]46'36'' N, 122[deg]22'56'' W (NAD 83)
where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.
Upon the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, scheduled to
begin at the conclusion of the baseball game, between approximately
9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on June 25, 2021, the safety zone will increase
in size and encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay,
from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points
700 feet out from the fireworks barge near Pier 48 in approximate
position 37[deg]46'36'' N, 122[deg]22'56'' W (NAD 83).
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding
the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times. All
vessels in the safety zone during the effective dates and times are
subject to movement control by the PATCOM or other Official Patrol,
defined as a federal, state, or local law enforcement agency on scene
to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing the safety zone. During the
enforcement period, if you are the operator of a vessel in one of the
safety zones you must comply directions from the Patrol Commander or
other Official Patrol.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement
period via the Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Jordan M. Baldueza,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2021-13610 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51646-51649]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87071; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2019-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed
Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Commodity-Based Trust
Shares) and To List and Trade Shares of the United States Bitcoin and
Treasury Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E

September 24, 2019.
    On June 12, 2019, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E and to list and trade shares (``Shares'')
of the United States Bitcoin and Treasury Investment Trust (``Trust'')
under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E, as proposed to be amended. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July
1, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86195 (June 25,
2019), 84 FR 31373 (July 1, 2019) (``Notice''). Comments on the
proposed rule change can be found at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-39/srnysearca201939.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period

within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ This order institutes
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86631 (Aug. 12,
2019), 84 FR 42028 (Aug. 16, 2019). The Commission designated
September 29, 2019, as the date by which it should approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Summary of the Proposal

    As described in detail in the Notice,\7\ the Exchange proposes to
amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E, which governs the listing and trading of
Commodity-Based Trust Shares on the Exchange,\8\ and to list and trade
Shares of the Trust under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E, as proposed to be
amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3.
    \8\ NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(1) defines the term ``Commodity-
Based Trust Shares'' as a security (a) that is issued by a trust
that holds a specified commodity deposited with the Trust; (b) that
is issued by such trust in a specified aggregate minimum number in
return for a deposit of a quantity of the underlying commodity; and
(c) that, when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may
be redeemed at a holder's request by such trust which will deliver
to the redeeming holder the quantity of the underlying commodity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Amendments to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E

    NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(1) currently states that Commodity-Based
Trust Shares are issued by a trust in a specified aggregate minimum
number in return for a deposit of a quantity of the underlying
commodity, and may be redeemed in the same specified minimum number by
a holder for the quantity of the underlying commodity. The Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 8.201-E(c)(1) to provide that Commodity-Based
Trust Shares may be issued and redeemed for the underlying commodity
and/or cash. The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 8.201-E(c)(2)
to state that the term ``commodity'' is defined in Section 1(a)(9) of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

Proposal To List and Trade Shares of the Trust

    The Shares would be issued by the Trust, a Delaware statutory
trust.\9\ The Trust would operate pursuant to a trust agreement between
Wilshire Phoenix Funds, LLC (``Sponsor'') and Delaware Trust Company.
UMB Bank N.A. would act as custodian for the Trust's cash and U.S.
treasury assets (``Cash and Treasury Custodian''), and UMB Fund
Services, Inc. would act as the transfer agent and administrator of the
Trust. Coinbase Custody Trust Company, LLC would act as the Bitcoin
custodian for the Trust (``Bitcoin Custodian'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On May 21, 2019, the Trust filed Amendment 3 to Form S-1
under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No. 333-229187).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The investment objective of the Trust would be for the Shares to
closely reflect the Bitcoin Treasury Index (``Index''), less the
Trust's liabilities and expenses. The Trust would have no assets other
than (a) bitcoin and (b) short-term U.S. Treasury securities with a
maturity of less than one year (``T-Bills''). The Trust would also hold
U.S. dollars for short periods of time in connection with (i) the
maturity of any T-Bills, (ii) the purchase and sale of bitcoin and/or
T-Bills, and (iii) the payment of redemptions, if any, and fees and
expenses of the Trust. Bitcoin would be held by the Bitcoin Custodian
on behalf of the Trust, and T-Bills and U.S. dollars would be held by
the Cash and Treasury Custodian on behalf of the Trust. The amount of
bitcoin and T-Bills held by the Trust would be determined by the
Index.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, 84 FR at 31374-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Index is calculated and published by Solactive AG (``Index
Calculation Agent'').\11\ The level of the Index is published on each
business day at approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and has two
components: (1) A notional component representing bitcoin (``Bitcoin
Component''); and (2) a notional component representing T-Bills
(``Treasury Component''). On a monthly basis, the Index rebalances its
weighting of the Bitcoin Component and the Treasury Component utilizing
a mathematically derived passive rules-based methodology that is based
on the daily volatility of the ``Bitcoin Price.'' The Bitcoin Price,
which will be the price of bitcoin used to determine the weighting of
the Bitcoin Component and the Treasury Component of the Index, as well
as the value of bitcoin held by the Trust, is based on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (``CME'') CF Bitcoin Reference Rate (``CME CF
BRR''). On a monthly basis, following the calculation of the weighting
of the components of the Index, the Trust would rebalance its holdings
in bitcoin and T-Bills in order to closely replicate the Index.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ According to the Exchange, the Index is a passive, rules-
based index, and the Index Calculation Agent provides calculation
services only. The Index Calculation Agent is not affiliated with
the Sponsor and has represented that it and its employees are
subject to market abuse laws and that the Index Calculation Agent
has established and maintains processes and procedures to prevent
the use and dissemination of material, non-public information
regarding the Index. See id. at 31375 n.11.
    \12\ See id. at 31375-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the proposal, the Trust may offer and sell Shares from
time to time through (1) underwriters, placement agents, or
distributors, or such other means as the Sponsor may determine or (2)
through subscription agreements. In addition, upon at least five
business days' prior written notice, a shareholder may redeem all or a
portion of its Shares on the last business day of each calendar month.
All redemptions will be based on the net asset value (``NAV'') of
Shares submitted for redemption, determined as of the last business day
of the applicable calendar month. In general, redemptions will be
deemed to occur on a ``first-in first-out'' basis among Shares held by
a particular shareholder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id. at 31377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2019-39 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \14\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy
issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings
does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with
respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments
on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\15\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the
Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth
in the

Notice,\17\ in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit
about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the following questions and asks commenters to submit data
where appropriate to support their views:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. What are commenters' views of the Exchange's assertion that the
``proper `market' that one should evaluate to determine whether the
`market' is inherently resistant to manipulation is the segment of the
market formed by the Constituent Platforms''? \18\ What are commenters'
views of the Exchange's conclusion that, while bitcoin is listed and
traded on a number of markets and platforms, the CME CF BRR exclusively
utilizes its Constituent Platforms to determine the value of the CME CF
BRR, and therefore, use of the CME CF BRR would mitigate the effects of
potential manipulation of the bitcoin market? \19\ Additionally, what
are commenters' views of the Exchange's assertion that the capital
necessary to maintain a significant presence on any Constituent
Platform would make manipulation of the CME CF BRR unlikely? \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 31378.
    \19\ See id. at 31383.
    \20\ See id. at 31379.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. What are commenters' views of the Exchange's assertion that the
CME CF BRR is not susceptible to manipulation? What are commenters'
views of the Exchange's assertion that the linkage between the bitcoin
markets and the presence of arbitrageurs in those markets means that
the manipulation of the price of bitcoin on any Constituent Platform
would likely require overcoming the liquidity supply of such
arbitrageurs who are potentially eliminating any cross-market pricing
differences? \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See id. (``The linkage between the [b]itcoin markets and
the presence of arbitrageurs . . . in those markets means that the
manipulation of the price of [b]itcoin on any Constituent Platform
would likely require overcoming the liquidity supply of such
arbitrageurs who are potentially eliminating any cross-market
pricing differences.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. What are commenters' views of the Exchange's arguments that
substantially similar price discovery and degrees of price volatility
among each of the Constituent Platforms support the conclusion that
robust arbitrage trading and liquidity provision occurs among the
Constituent Platforms? \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. at 31378-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. What are commenters' views on whether the Constituent Platforms
are regulated markets of significant size related to bitcoin? What are
commenters' views on the Exchange's assertion that, because the CME CF
BRR is calculated based solely on the price data from the Constituent
Platforms, manipulating the CME CF BRR must necessarily entail
manipulating the price data at one or more Constituent Platforms and
that anyone attempting to manipulate the Trust would need to place
numerous large sized trades on any of the Constituent Platforms that
are used to calculate the CME CF BRR? \23\ What are commenters' views
on the Exchange's argument that, if an attempt were made to manipulate
the Trust, the administrator for the CME CF BRR and the CME would be
able to detect the manipulative trading patterns? \24\ What are
commenters' views on the Exchange's assertion that the CME and the
Exchange would be able, in the case of any suspicious trades, to share
surveillance information with the Constituent Platforms and to discover
all material trade information including the identities of the
customers placing the trades? \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 31380 & n.50.
    \24\ See id. at 31380 & n.51.
    \25\ See id. at 31380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. What are commenters' views of the Exchange's assertion that the
trading volume in CME bitcoin futures makes the CME a regulated market
of significant size related to bitcoin? \26\ Additionally, what are
commenters' views of the Exchange's assertions that, in comparison, the
bitcoin futures market is larger in size as a percentage of bitcoin
spot trading than the size of the gold futures markets as a percentage
of OTC gold trading? \27\ What are commenters' views on whether there
is a reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate the
Shares would also have to trade on the CME to manipulate the Shares?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id.
    \27\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. What are commenters' views on the trading relationship between
the CME and the Constituent Platforms or the bitcoin spot market more
broadly? For example, what is the relative size of these markets, and
where does bitcoin price formation occur? Does the market, spot or
futures, in which price formation occurs affect commenters' analysis of
whether it is reasonably likely that someone attempting to manipulate
the Shares would have to trade on the CME, or that trading in the
Shares would be the predominant influence on prices on the CME?
    7. What are commenters' views on the Exchange's representation
that, ``given the nature of the Trust and the composition of its
assets, trading in the Trust would not be the predominant influence on
prices (i) that make up the CME CF BRR, (ii) in the [b]itcoin futures
market on the CME, or (iii) in the USD/BTC spot market on the
Constituent Platforms?'' \28\ In addition, what are commenters' views
on the Exchange's conclusion that, because the Trust will only purchase
bitcoin if (1) required to as a result of the monthly rebalancing of
its assets or (2) if it sells Shares to new investors, and will only
sell bitcoin if required to as a result of the monthly rebalancing of
its assets, ``trading in the Shares will not cause the Trust to
purchase or sell [b]itcoin and will therefore not influence the price
of [b]itcoin?'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 31381.
    \29\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. According to the Exchange, (a) the level of the Index is
published on each business day at approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern time
(U.S.), (b) the CME CF BRR aggregates the trade flow of the Constituent
Platforms during a calculation window into the U.S. dollar price of one
bitcoin as of 4:00 p.m. London time, (c) the Trust's NAV will be
determined daily as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern time (U.S.), and (d) the Trust
will determine the price of the Trust's bitcoin by reference to the
Bitcoin Reference Rate, which is published between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30
p.m. London time. What are commenters' views on whether (and if so,
how) the variation in timing with respect to the calculation and price
determination of the underlying bitcoin price, Index level, and NAV
would affect the susceptibility of the Shares to fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices? What are commenters' views on whether
this variation in timing would affect the ability of arbitrage to keep
the price of the Shares aligned with the value of the portfolio at all
times during the trading day?
    9. What are commenters' views on the requirement that shareholders
may redeem all or a portion of its Shares only on the last business day
of each calendar month? \30\ What are commenters' views on whether this
restriction on redemptions would affect the ability of arbitrage to
keep the price of the Shares aligned with the value of the portfolio
continuously during the trading day over each monthly period? What are
commenters' views on whether this restriction on redemptions would
affect the resistance of the Shares to manipulation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 13 and accompanying text.

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

III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and
the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to
be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be
facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the
Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on
Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or
disapproved by October 21, 2019. Any person who wishes to file a
rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by
November 4, 2019.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-39. 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2019-39 and should be submitted
by October 21, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November
4, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21097 Filed 9-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 48787]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18672]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92750; File No. SR-NSCC-2021-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Confidential Information,
Market Disruption Events, Systems Disconnect, and Other Changes

August 25, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On June 25, 2021, National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') proposed rule change SR-NSCC-2021-007 (the ``Proposed
Rule Change'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to amend NSCC's
rules relating to confidentiality requirements, market disruption
events, systems disconnect, and other changes. The Proposed Rule Change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 13, 2021,\3\
and the Commission received a comment, which addresses issues that also
appear in this Proposed Rule Change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92334 (June 25, 2021),
86 FR 36815 (July 13, 2021) (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-007) (``Notice of
Filing'').
    \4\ Specifically, the Commission received a comment letter on a
proposed rule change filed by NSCC's affiliate, the Depository Trust
Company (``DTC''), regarding parallel changes to DTC's Rules. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92342 (June 25, 2021), 86 FR
36833 (July 13, 2021) (File No. SR-DTC-2021-011). The comment letter
is available on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-dtc-2021-011/srdtc2021011.htm. Because the comment
addresses issues that also appear in this Proposed Rule Change, the
Commission will consider it in connection with NSCC's proposal as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for the Proposed Rule Change
is effectively Friday, August 27, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day review period for Commission
action on the Proposed Rule Change. In order to provide the Commission
with sufficient time to consider the Proposed Rule Change, the
Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the Proposed Rule Change.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates Friday, October 8,
2021, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove
the Proposed Rule Change (File No. SR-NSCC-2021-007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18672 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 62302-62303]
[DOCID:fr20oc08-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1795-DR]

Indiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1795-DR), dated September 23, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective October 6, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24789 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P