[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4805-4812]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01595]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0078; FRL-8726-02-R9]

Finding of Failure To Attain the 2008 Lead and 2010 Sulfur
Dioxide Standards; Arizona; Hayden and Miami Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that
the Hayden lead (Pb) nonattainment area (NAA) failed to attain the 2008
Pb primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS
or ``standards'') by the applicable attainment date of October 3, 2019.
The EPA is also determining that the Hayden and Miami sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2
primary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. As
a result of these determinations, the State of Arizona is required to
submit by January 31, 2023, revisions to the Arizona State
implementation plan (SIP) that, among other elements, provide for
expeditious attainment of the Pb NAAQS in the Hayden Pb NAA and the
SO2 NAAQS in the Hayden and Miami SO2 NAAs by
January 31, 2027.

DATES: This rule is effective March 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0078. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and Responses
III. Environmental Justice Considerations
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On May 10, 2021, the EPA proposed to determine that the Hayden Pb
NAA failed to attain the 2008 Pb primary and secondary NAAQS \1\ by the
applicable

attainment date of October 3, 2019, based upon monitored air quality
data from November 2015 to December 2018.\2\ In the May 10, 2021
action, the EPA also proposed to determine that the Hayden and Miami
SO2 NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2
primary NAAQS \3\ by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018,
based upon monitored air quality data from January 2015 to December
2017. The Hayden Pb and SO2 NAAs include parts of Gila and
Pinal counties and exclude the parts of Indian country within the
areas. The Miami SO2 NAA includes parts of Gila County and
excludes parts of Indian country within the area.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA first established primary and secondary Pb standards
in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) as a
quarterly average. 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978). Based on updated
health and scientific data in 2008, the EPA revised the Federal Pb
standards to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and revised the averaging time for the
standards. 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008). The EPA established
primary and secondary standards at the same level for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including
protecting the health of ``sensitive'' populations such as
asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide
public welfare protection, including protection against decreased
visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
Because the primary and secondary Pb standards are the same, we
refer to them hereafter in this document using the singular ``Pb
standard'' or ``Pb NAAQS.''
    \2\ 86 FR 24829.
    \3\ The EPA first established primary SO2 standards
in 1971 at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging
period and 0.3 ppm over an annual averaging period. 36 FR 8186
(April 30, 1971). In June 2010, the EPA revised the NAAQS for
SO2 to provide increased protection of public health,
providing for revocation of the 1971 primary annual and 24-hour
SO2 standards for most areas of the country following
area designations under the new NAAQS. 40 CFR 50.4(e). The 2010
NAAQS is 75 parts per billion (equivalent to 0.075 parts per
million) over a 1-hour averaging period. 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010).
    \4\ For exact descriptions of the Hayden and Miami
SO2 NAAs, refer to 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule provided background information on the effects of
exposure related to elevated levels of Pb and SO2, the
promulgation of the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and the
designation of the Hayden and Miami areas under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 86 FR 24829, 24829-24830.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the May 10, 2021 proposed rule, we also described the EPA's
obligation under CAA section 179(c)(1) to determine whether an area's
air quality meets the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA
regulations establishing the specific methods and procedures to
determine whether an area has attained the 2008 Pb and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and the Pb and SO2 monitoring networks
operated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) in
the Hayden and Miami areas.\6\ We also documented our previous review
of Arizona's monitoring networks and annual network plans, Arizona's
annual certifications of ambient air monitoring data, our 2018
technical systems audit of ADEQ, and our evaluation of monitored Pb and
SO2 data against relevant data completeness requirements to
determine validity for comparison against the 2008 Pb and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, respectively.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 86 FR 24830-24832.
    \7\ 86 FR 24832-24833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.16 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix R, the 2008 Pb NAAQS is met in an area when the
design value is less than or equal to 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\) at each eligible monitoring site in the area. The Pb
design value at each eligible monitoring site is the maximum valid 3-
month arithmetic mean Pb concentration calculated over three years.
Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour annual SO2 standard is
met when the design value is less than or equal to 75 parts per billion
(ppb). The SO2 design value is calculated by computing the
three-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour
average concentrations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 1(c),
daily maximum 1-hour values refer to the maximum 1-hour
SO2 concentration values measured from midnight to
midnight that are used in the NAAQS computations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, to evaluate whether the Hayden NAA attained
the 2008 Pb NAAQS by the October 3, 2019 attainment date, we determined
the 2016-2018 design value at each Pb monitoring site in the Hayden NAA
using monitored data from November 2015 to December 2018.\9\ We
determined that both Pb monitoring sites in the Hayden NAA produced
valid design values for the 2016-2018 data period. Based on these valid
design values, we found that both sites did not meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS
of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ by the October 3, 2019 attainment date. The Hayden
Pb 2018 annual design value site, i.e., the site with the highest
design value based on monitored data from November 2015 to December
2018, is the Hillcrest site with a 2018 Pb design value of 0.31 [mu]g/
m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 86 FR 24829, 24833. In accordance with appendix R to 40 CFR
part 50, compliance with the Pb NAAQS is determined based on data
from 36 consecutive valid 3-month periods (i.e., 38 months, or a 3-
year calendar period and the preceding November and December).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate whether the Hayden and Miami NAAs attained the 2010
SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date, we
determined the 2015-2017 design value at each SO2 monitoring
site in the Hayden and Miami NAAs using monitored data from January
2015 to December 2017.\10\ We determined that the one SO2
monitoring site in the Hayden NAA and two of the three SO2
monitoring sites in the Miami NAA produced valid design values for the
2015-2017 data period. Based on these valid design values, we found
that each SO2 monitoring site producing a valid 2015-2017
design value in the Hayden and Miami NAAs did not meet the 2010
SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.
The Hayden SO2 2017 annual design value site, i.e., the site
with the highest design value based on monitored data from January 2015
to December 2017, is the Hayden Old Jail site with a 2017
SO2 design value of 295 ppb. The Miami SO2 2017
design value site is the Miami Jones Ranch site with a 2017
SO2 design value of 221 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 86 FR 24834.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Hayden Pb NAA to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS by October 3,
2019, the 2018 Pb design value at each eligible monitoring site in the
Hayden NAA must be equal to or less than 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. Because at
least one site had a 2018 Pb design value greater than 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\,
we proposed to determine that the Hayden Pb NAA failed to attain the
2008 Pb NAAQS by the October 3, 2019 attainment date. Similarly, for
the Hayden and Miami SO2 NAAs to attain the 2010
SO2 NAAQS by October 4, 2018, the 2017 SO2 design
value at each eligible monitoring site in the Hayden and Miami NAAs
must be equal to or less than 75 ppb. Because at least one site in both
the Hayden and Miami NAAs had a 2017 SO2 design value
greater than 75 ppb, we proposed to determine that the Hayden and Miami
SO2 NAAs failed to attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by
the October 4, 2018 attainment date. The May 10, 2021 proposed rule
described the CAA requirements that would apply if the EPA were to
finalize the proposed findings of failure to attain the 2008 Pb and
2010 SO2 NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, we also described in the proposed rule that the dominant
source of Pb and SO2 emissions in the Hayden Pb and
SO2 NAAs is the Asarco LLC (``Asarco'') Hayden Smelter, and
the dominant source of SO2 emissions in the Miami
SO2 NAA is the Freeport-McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI) Miami
Smelter. Due to the unique nature of these two facilities, which are
the only batch process primary copper smelters in the country, we
requested comment on what additional measures could be feasibly
implemented at these facilities under CAA section 179(d)(2) in light of

technological achievability, costs, and any non-air quality and other
air quality-related health and environmental impacts.

II. Public Comments and Responses

    The May 10, 2021 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment
period that closed on June 9, 2021. During this period, seven comment
letters were submitted to the EPA in response to the proposed rule. One
comment letter was submitted by an anonymous commenter. This comment
letter consisted of a pre-publication version of the May 10, 2021
proposed rulemaking and contained no commentary on the proposed action.
The six remaining comment letters were submitted by the Arizona Center
for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI), ADEQ, Asarco, FMMI, an
additional representative of Asarco, and a private citizen. This
section summarizes five of the six substantive comment letters
submitted in response to the May 10, 2021 proposal and includes EPA's
response to each of these comment letters. The additional comment
letter submitted by Asarco's representative consists of more detailed
technical comments concerning data quality and validity. We respond to
these comments in a separate document available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    Comment 1: ACLPI supports the EPA's proposed findings of failure to
attain the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the May 10, 2021
proposed rulemaking and urges the EPA to finalize them as soon as
possible so as not to delay implementation of additional control
measures necessary to reach attainment of health-based standards for
these areas. In response to the EPA's request for comment on additional
measures that could be feasibly implemented at the Asarco Hayden
Smelter under CAA section 179(d)(2), ACLPI recommends control measures
focusing on sources of lead-bearing particles, including the following:
(1) Sulfide minerals from crushed ore or concentrate, (2) flash furnace
dust, and (3) lead and zinc sulfates likely originating from converter
dust. In support of its recommendations, ACLPI cites and encloses with
its comment letter a report prepared by James Anderson, Professor
Emeritus at the School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy
at Arizona State University, entitled Assessment of the origins of
lead-bearing airborne particulates at Hayden, Arizona by electron
micro-analysis.
    Response 1: We appreciate the additional information supplied by
ACLPI concerning specific sources of lead-bearing particles at the
Asarco Hayden facility. We note that the submitted study was conducted
in 2017, prior to full implementation of controls for the Hayden Pb
NAA, which was required by 2018.\12\ For example, Asasrco was required
to implement new primary, secondary, and tertiary hooding systems for
the converter aisle and a new ventilation system for matte tapping and
slag skimming for the flash furnace by July 2018.\13\ Accordingly, the
data from the 2017 study may not accurately represent the contributions
of the facility, including the converter aisle and flash furnace
sources, following the implementation of these controls. Furthermore,
the study does not address the technological feasibility or cost of any
potential controls, which must also be considered in establishing
control requirements under 179(d)(2). Therefore, we do not believe this
study provides a sufficient basis for us to prescribe specific control
measures for the Hayden area SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d)(2)
at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., 83 FR 31087, 31096 (July 3, 2018), ``Table 6-
Control Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions,'' showing
implementation deadlines of July 2018 for multiple controls for the
Hayden Pb NAA.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we note that the EPA has proposed a residual risk and
technology review (RTR) for the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants for primary copper smelting major sources,
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQ.\14\ This proposed rule
includes reviews of health risks associated with hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions from primary copper smelting major sources
and developments in practices, processes, and control technologies
under CAA sections 112(f)(2)(A) and 112(d)(6). Based on the findings of
these reviews, the EPA has proposed revised and new emissions standards
for primary copper smelting major sources. The only two primary copper
smelting major sources in the United States and, consequently, the only
two sources that are subject to the current major source emissions
standards in subpart QQQ and that would become subject to the revised
standards proposed in the primary copper smelting RTR, if finalized,
are the Asarco Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters. The revised and new
emissions standards in the proposed RTR address anode refining furnace
point source emissions of particulate matter (PM) (as a surrogate for
non-mercury HAP-metals), roofline emissions of PM from anode refining
furnaces and smelting furnaces, and point source emissions of mercury
from dryers, converters, anode refining furnaces, and smelting
furnaces. In the RTR, PM is regulated as a surrogate for non-mercury
metal HAP, including Pb. Given that the RTR rulemaking process for
these sources is ongoing, we believe it would not be appropriate to
require specific additional measures under 179(d)(2) at this time,
because such measures could potentially be inconsistent with measures
that may ultimately be required under the RTR rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 87 FR 1616 (January 11, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Hayden Pb and SO2 SIP revisions required
under CAA section 179(d)(2) at this time, we encourage ADEQ to consider
ACLPI's recommendations and the findings of the Arizona State
University report enclosed in ACLPI's comment when determining
appropriate measures to be included in the SIP revisions required
pursuant to section 179(d)(1) as a result of this action.
    Comment 2: ADEQ notes that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has not been
operational since October 2019. ADEQ also notes that the EPA's proposed
finding of failure to attain considers SO2 monitoring data
gathered prior to the completion of upgrades to the Asarco Hayden
Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter. ADEQ suggests that if the EPA finalizes
its proposed determination in the fall of 2021, a new attainment date
in late 2026 would be appropriate because it would be consistent with
the timeframe established in CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 179(d)(3) and
would allow ADEQ to collaborate with Asarco and FMMI to develop new
attainment plans fulfilling all applicable requirements.
    Response 2: We recognize that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has been
inoperational since October 2019 and that the proposed findings of
failure to attain were based on monitoring data gathered prior to the
completion of upgrades to both smelters. However, CAA section 179(c)(1)
requires the EPA to determine whether a nonattainment area has attained
the NAAQS based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date. As
described in the proposed rule, in accordance with appendix R to 40 CFR
part 50, the Pb design value is determined based on monitoring data
from the most recent three calendar years and two previous months. The
Pb design value as of the October 3, 2019 attainment date is therefore
determined based on air quality monitoring data from November 1, 2015
to December 31, 2018. As also described in the proposed rule, in
accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50, the SO2 design
value is

based on monitoring data from the most recent three calendar years. The
SO2 design value as of the October 4, 2018 attainment date
is therefore determined based on air quality monitoring data from
January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. The CAA does not provide the EPA
with discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after
the attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure
to attain under section 179(c)(1).
    Under CAA section 179(d)(3), the new maximum attainment date for
each nonattainment area is the date by which attainment can be achieved
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after the
EPA publishes a document in the Federal Register determining that the
nonattainment area failed to attain the relevant NAAQS (in this case,
five years from the date this final rule publishes in the Federal
Register). To be approved by the EPA, NAA SIP submittals need to ensure
that the affected NAAs reach attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.
    Comment 3: Asarco notes that the Asarco Hayden Smelter has not been
operational since October 2019 and that the Pb and SO2
monitoring data relied upon in the EPA's proposed finding of failure to
attain almost entirely predate emissions capture and control
improvements installed at the Asarco Hayden Smelter between 2018 and
2020. Asarco details these improvements and states that the EPA should
defer action on the proposed finding of failure to attain to allow time
for the Asarco Hayden Smelter to resume steady state operation and for
monitored Pb and SO2 data to demonstrate the efficacy of
these improvements. Asarco states that the 179(d) proceedings triggered
by the finding of failure to attain would create a legal possibility of
the imposition on Asarco of hundreds of millions of dollars in
additional emissions capture and control obligations and that the
financial uncertainty that this would cause could very well spell the
permanent end of the Hayden smelter. Asarco argues that the EPA's
request for comment on additional measures that could be feasibly
implemented at the Asarco Hayden Smelter under CAA section 179(d)(2) is
premature in advance of a final finding of failure to attain under CAA
section 179(c) and is irrelevant to a determination of whether a
finding of failure to attain is warranted. Asarco also argues that the
EPA is required to undertake notice and comment rulemaking in response
to a SIP revision submitted under CAA section 179(d)(1) before making a
final determination of whether additional emissions capture or control
requirements at the Hayden smelter are necessary.
    Response 3: We acknowledge that the monitoring data relied upon in
the proposed action largely predate the emissions capture and control
improvements installed at the Asarco Hayden Smelter between 2018 and
2020 and that the smelter has not been operational since October 2019.
We note, however, that SIP-approved rules R18-2-B1302 (``Limits on
SO2 Emissions from the Hayden Smelter'') and R18-2-B1301
(``Limits on Lead Emissions from the Hayden Smelter'') required
compliance no later than July 1, 2018, and other Pb controls at the
Hayden Smelter were required to be implemented by July 13, 2018.\15\
Therefore, it appears that the upgrades and optimization projects that
Asarco describes as being finalized in late 2018 through 2020 were in
addition to those upgrades that were required in the SIP for the
purpose of bringing the area into attainment of the SO2 and
Pb NAAQS. This suggests that the current SIP-approved control measures
may not have been adequate to provide for attainment and that a SIP
revision is therefore needed to make the additional control upgrades
performed in late 2018 through 2020 (and any other measures needed to
provide for attainment) permanent and enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 83 FR 31087, 31096 (July 3, 2018), ``Table 6-Control
Implementation Schedule and Emission Reductions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed in our response to ADEQ's comment in this
document (response 2), the EPA is required to determine whether a
nonattainment area attained the NAAQS based on the area's air quality
as of the attainment date. The CAA does not provide the EPA with
discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after the
attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure to
attain under section 179(c)(1). Therefore, even if we were to delay our
determinations of whether the Hayden Pb and SO2 NAAs
attained the NAAQS by the respective attainment dates until the Asarco
Hayden Smelter resumes steady state operation, we would not be able to
consider monitoring data reflecting the improvements installed at the
Asarco Hayden Smelter after those attainment dates. Such data could,
however, be considered in future actions, such as a determination under
the EPA's clean data policy (discussed in response 4 in this document)
or a determination of whether the Hayden Pb and SO2 NAAs
attained the respective NAAQS by the new attainment date triggered by
this finding. Furthermore, the new Pb and SO2 plans that
will be due within one year after publication of this action in the
Federal Register must each include ``a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions.'' \16\ These updated inventories must
necessarily reflect the controls installed at the Hayden smelter in
2018-2020 and will serve as the foundation for modeling and other
analyses in the new plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe Asarco has mischaracterized the implications of the
proposed findings. Contrary to Asarco's suggestion, the development of
new attainment plans will not necessarily result in requirements for
new emissions controls. If the new plans demonstrate that all
applicable Pb and SO2 attainment-related CAA requirements
are satisfied with existing controls (including those installed in
2018-2020), then further controls related to attainment of the Pb and
SO2 NAAQS would not be required. Furthermore, as noted in
the proposal, the EPA has already disapproved portions of the 2010
SO2 attainment plan for the Hayden nonattainment area.\17\
Specifically, the EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration and
other elements tied to this demonstration.\18\ Accordingly, the State
would need to submit a revised attainment demonstration and related
elements for the Hayden SO2 NAA, and the EPA would need to
propose to approve that future SIP, in order to avoid application of
mandatory sanctions under CAA sections 179(a) and 179(b) and 40 CFR
52.31. As also explained in the proposal, the EPA anticipates that
Arizona's submission of a new, approvable SO2 attainment
plan in response to a final finding of failure to attain would also
satisfy these existing obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 85 FR 71547 (November 10, 2020).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree that our request for comment on additional measures
that could be feasibly implemented at the Asarco Hayden Smelter under
CAA section 179(d)(2) was premature in advance of a finding of failure
to attain under CAA section 179(c)(2). Because such a finding
automatically triggers a one-year deadline for submittal of a revised
SIP meeting the requirements of 179(d)(2), it would be reasonable for
the EPA to prescribe specific measures under 179(d)(2) in conjunction
with a final action under 179(c)(2) so that the State has adequate
notice of the need to include these measures while developing its SIP.
However, in this

particular case, we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Hayden Pb and SO2 SIP revisions under CAA
section 179(d)(2) at this time.
    Comment 4: FMMI states that the monitoring data relied upon in the
EPA's proposed finding of failure to attain do not reflect extensive
upgrades to emission control and capture systems implemented at the
FMMI Miami Smelter in January 2018. FMMI states that the EPA's proposed
finding of failure to attain does not address air quality dispersion
modeling or a demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has
been fully implemented. FMMI argues that a more appropriate context for
the EPA's request for comment on additional measures that could be
feasibly implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter would be to recognize
the following: (1) The upgrades to emission control and capture systems
implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter, (2) ADEQ's dispersion modeling
demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and
(3) subsequent monitoring data indicating that emission reductions are
providing for attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FMMI
cites the EPA's ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (``SO2 SIP Guidance''),\19\ which states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Memorandum dated April 23, 2014, from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to EPA
Regional Air Directors, Regions 1-10, Subject: ``Guidance for 1-Hour
SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' 11.

    The EPA believes that, where a control strategy has recently
taken effect and the state can determine based on recent monitoring
data or other relevant information that the control strategy will
result in attainment once 3 years of data that reflect those
controls are available, the required plan revisions can be
accomplished in a very streamlined manner. The EPA expects that the
submittal to the EPA could simply provide a determination that: (1)
All monitors in the affected area have at least 1 calendar year of
clean air quality data, (2) the approved SIP has been fully
implemented for the area, and (3) emission sources have complied
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
with their SIP requirements.

    FMMI notes that, despite implementation of the required capture and
control upgrades by January 2018, ``there were still several instances
of recorded daily maximum 1-hour SO2 concentrations above
the standard in calendar year 2018.'' FMMI explains that, in response
to these exceedances, it ``implemented several measures to improve
capture and minimize fugitive SO2 emissions.'' FMMI further
states that the two monitors in the Miami NAA recorded a total of three
exceedances of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2020, all of which
``were attributed to a specific event or issue at the Miami Smelter
that was subsequently resolved,'' and that since January 1, 2021, there
have been no exceedances of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS recorded at
either of these monitors. On this basis, FMMI argues that, because (1)
the monitors in the Miami SO2 NAA have at least one calendar
year of clean data, (2) the approved Miami SO2 NAA SIP has
been fully implemented, and (3) the FMMI Miami Smelter is in compliance
with its source-specific SIP requirements, the SIP revision required
under CAA section 179(d)(1) following a finding of failure to attain
under section 179(c)(2) need only affirm the previously approved SIP
and establish a new attainment date that reflects three full years of
implementation. FMMI also states that certain SIP requirements,
including contingency measures, can be suspended if the monitors in the
Miami SO2 NAA have at least one calendar year of data
indicating that the area is attaining the standard.
    Response 4: As discussed in response 2 of this document, the EPA is
required to determine whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS
based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, and the CAA
does not provide the EPA with discretion to consider air quality
monitoring data collected after the attainment date in making
determinations of attainment or failure to attain under section
179(c)(1). We acknowledge that the monitoring data relied upon in the
proposed action therefore do not fully reflect upgrades to emission
control and capture systems implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter as of
January 2018 because some of those upgrades occurred after the area's
attainment date. However, we note that the construction schedule set
forth in the approved implementation plan indicated that FMMI planned
to complete many of the required upgrades in 2016-2017, so the
monitoring data in 2016-2017 would have reflected some of these
upgrades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision: Miami Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,'' 84
(March 8, 2017), Table 5-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FMMI states that the EPA's proposed finding of failure to
attain does not address air quality dispersion modeling or a
demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has been fully
implemented, FMMI also acknowledges that monitoring data from January
1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 do not demonstrate attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS in the Miami NAA by the attainment date. As
described in the EPA's SO2 SIP Guidance, we are not able to
make a determination of attainment for an area if the monitors in the
area do not yield a design value that meets the NAAQS prior to the
applicable attainment date. In the proposed rule, we found that two
regulatory air monitors in the Miami NAA produced complete, valid 1-
hour SO2 design values for the 2015-2017 data period.
Because complete and valid monitoring data were available to determine
that the Miami NAA failed to attain the SO2 NAAQS by the
attainment date, we do not find it necessary or appropriate to consider
air quality dispersion modeling or a demonstration that the control
strategy in the SIP has been fully implemented in our attainment
determination. We acknowledge FMMI's comment that recognizing upgrades
to the smelter, dispersion modeling demonstrating attainment, and
monitoring data demonstrating progress toward attainment would provide
a more appropriate context for our request for comment on additional
measures that could be feasibly implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter.
We note that we are not taking final action to prescribe additional
measures for the Miami SO2 SIP revision under CAA section
179(d)(2) at this time.
    As noted by FMMI, the SO2 SIP Guidance indicates that,
following a finding of failure to attain, in appropriate circumstances
the EPA may approve a revised plan that affirms the previously approved
control strategy but establishes a new attainment date. In particular,
the SO2 SIP Guidance indicates that this approach may be
appropriate if the state can determine, based on recent monitoring data
or other relevant information, that the control strategy in the
existing SIP will result in attainment once three years of data
reflecting those controls are available.\21\ We recognize the progress
that the Miami SO2 NAA has made toward attainment of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS since emissions control and capture
improvements were implemented at the FMMI Miami Smelter in January
2018. However, as FMMI acknowledges in its comment, monitors in the
Miami area recorded multiple exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS in
2018-2020, even after full implementation of the improvements required
under the SIP. We appreciate that, since 2018, FMMI has implemented
additional improvements to emissions capture at the Miami Smelter to
address those exceedances. However, because those

improvements were implemented after the attainment date, they were
evidently not required under the existing SIP. This suggests that the
control strategy in the existing SIP is, in fact, not sufficient to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS and that substantive revisions to
the requirements of the SIP may be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ SO2 SIP Guidance, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we do not agree with the commenter's assertion that
certain SIP requirements, including contingency measures, can be
suspended based on one calendar year of monitoring data indicating no
hourly exceedances of the NAAQS level. The commenter appears to be
referring to the EPA's clean data policy, which is discussed in the
SO2 SIP Guidance.\22\ However, contrary to the commenter's
suggestion, a single year of clean monitoring data is not a sufficient
basis for the EPA to suspend attainment-related SIP requirements under
the SO2 clean data policy. Rather, ADEQ would need to
demonstrate that the area has three consecutive calendar years of air
quality monitoring data which show that the area is meeting the
standard and provide either (1) modeling of the most recent three years
of actual emissions for the area or (2) a demonstration that the
affected monitor(s) is located in the area of maximum
concentration.\23\ We also note that a clean data finding would only
suspend the requirements for the State to submit SIP revisions to
address certain attainment-related requirements. Such a finding would
not affect existing requirements that already apply under the SIP. Such
requirements can only be altered by a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAA section 110(l). Therefore, contrary to the
commenter's suggestion, a clean data finding would not alter the
States' or sources' ongoing obligations to implement the contingency
measures in the previously approved SIP for the Miami NAA that will be
triggered by the findings in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at 51-60.
    \23\ Id. at 57-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: One commenter, a private citizen, argues that, due to
the unique nature of the Asarco Hayden Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter,
the time allotted for each smelter to retrofit its equipment before the
attainment date is capricious and arbitrary. The commenter states that
the EPA's finding of failure to attain should consider improvements
made at both smelters, the challenges posed to both smelters as a
result of the EPA's tightened Pb and SO2 NAAQS, and the
short time frame allotted for both smelters to retrofit their equipment
before the applicable attainment dates. Finally, citing CAA sections
110 and 172, the commenter argues that the EPA should seek revisions to
the SIP and extend the attainment dates in order to prove the
retrofitted smelters have fulfilled requirements under 172(c).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ We interpret the commenter's reference to ``42 U.S.C. 7410
(h)(k)(j) and U.S.C. 7502 (2)(a)'' to refer to CAA sections 110(h),
(j), and (k) (42 U.S.C. 7410(h), (j), and (k)), and 172(a)(2) (42
U.S.C. 7502(a)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 5: We disagree that the time allotted for each smelter to
retrofit its equipment before the attainment date is capricious and
arbitrary. CAA section 192(a) provides that the attainment date for
newly designated Pb and SO2 nonattainment areas is ``as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years from the date of
the nonattainment designation.'' \25\ Thus, the October 4, 2018
attainment date for the Hayden and Miami SO2 NAAs and the
October 3, 2019 attainment date for Hayden Pb NAA were the latest
possible dates permitted by statute. While we acknowledge that the
monitoring data relied upon in the proposed action do not reflect all
of the emissions control and capture improvements that have been made
to date at the Hayden Asarco Smelter and FMMI Miami Smelter, as
discussed in response 2 of this document, the EPA is required to
determine whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS based on the
area's air quality as of the attainment date. The EPA does not have the
discretion to consider air quality monitoring data collected after the
attainment date in making determinations of attainment or failure to
attain under CAA section 179(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2)(D) and 192(a), the
attainment date extension provision under section 172(a)(2)(A) does
not apply to the Pb or SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not agree with the commenter's suggestion that we should take
action under CAA sections 110(h), (j) or (k) in relation to the Hayden
Pb, Hayden SO2, or Miami SO2 NAAs. CAA
subsections 110(h), 42 U.S.C. 7410(h), (``Publication of comprehensive
document for each State setting forth requirements of applicable
implementation plan'') and 110(j), 42 U.S.C. 7410(j) (``Technological
systems of continuous emission reduction on new or modified stationary
sources; compliance with performance standards'') have no particular
relevance to attainment plans, and we believe the references to these
sections may have been in error. If the commenter is suggesting that
the EPA seek revisions to the SIP and extend attainment dates under its
authority to issue a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5), we do not
believe such a SIP call is necessary or appropriate for the Hayden Pb,
Hayden SO2, or Miami SO2 NAAs at this time. The
findings in this action trigger new attainment dates \26\ and
requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 179(d), and the newly
required SIP revisions must meet the requirements of CAA sections 110
and 172, including the provisions of section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)
referenced by the commenter.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As noted in the proposal, under CAA section 179(d)(3), the
new attainment date for each nonattainment area is the date by which
attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the EPA publishes a final action in the
Federal Register determining that the nonattainment area failed to
attain the applicable Pb or SO2 standard.
    \27\ CAA section 179(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-
income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009,
January 25, 2021) directs Federal Government agencies to assess
whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate
systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and
other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619,
February 1, 2021) directs Federal agencies to develop programs,
policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health,
environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged
communities. To identify environmental burdens and susceptible
populations in underserved communities in the Hayden Pb, Hayden
SO2, and Miami SO2 NAAs, and to examine the
implications of the proposed findings of failure to attain the 2008 Pb
and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on these communities, we performed a
screening-level analysis using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ)
screening and mapping tool (``EJSCREEN'').\28\ Our screening-level
analysis indicates that communities in the NAAs affected by this
action, particularly in the neighborhoods surrounding the Asarco

Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters, score highly compared to the national
average for the EJSCREEN ``Demographic Index,'' which is the average of
an area's percent minority and percent low income populations, i.e.,
the two demographic indicators explicitly named in Executive Order
12898.\29\ These neighborhoods also score highly compared to the
national average for the ``population with less than high school
education'' and ``population over age 64'' indicators. Additionally,
these neighborhoods score highly compared to the national average for
numerous EJ Index indicators, including the Pb paint EJ Index and
wastewater discharge EJ Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ EJSCREEN provides a nationally consistent dataset and
approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators.
EJSCREEN is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen.
The EPA used EJSCREEN to obtain environmental and demographic
indicators representing the Hayden and Miami nonattainment areas as
well as for buffer areas of approximately 1-, 2-, and 3-mile radii
centered around the Asarco Hayden and FMMI Miami smelters. These
indicators are included in the file titled ``EJSCREEN summary.xlsx''
available in the rulemaking docket for this action.
    \29\ EJSCREEN reports environmental indicators (e.g., air toxics
cancer risk, Pb paint exposure, and traffic proximity and volume)
and demographic indicators (e.g., people of color, low income, and
linguistically isolated populations). Depending on the indicator, a
community that scores highly for an indicator may have a higher
percentage of its population within a demographic group or a higher
average exposure or proximity to an environmental health hazard
compared to the state, region, or national average. EJSCREEN also
reports EJ indexes, which are combinations of a single environmental
indicator with the EJSCREEN Demographic Index. For additional
information about environmental and demographic indicators and EJ
indexes reported by EJSCREEN, see EPA, ``EJSCREEN Environmental
Justice Mapping and Screening Tool--EJSCREEN Technical
Documentation,'' section 2 (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color
and low-income populations often experience greater exposure and
disease burdens than the general population, which can increase their
susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental
stressors.\30\ Underserved communities can also experience reduced
access to health care, nutritional, and fitness resources, further
increasing their susceptibility. In addition to the demographic and
environmental indicators identified in our screening level analysis,
the proximity of underserved communities to the Asarco Hayden and FMMI
Miami smelters (and exposure to Pb and SO2 emissions from
these facilities) contribute to the potential EJ concerns faced by
communities in the affected nonattainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA, ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental
Justice in Regulatory Analysis,'' section 4 (June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final action triggers the implementation of contingency
measures and requires the State of Arizona to develop updated SIP
revisions providing for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in Hayden and
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in Hayden and Miami. The
implementation of contingency measures and development of required SIP
revisions will result in air quality improvements and human health
benefits for Hayden- and Miami-area residents, including those in
underserved communities. Conversely, failure to make the determinations
in this final action could inhibit or delay the attainment of the 2008
Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS in these areas, perpetuating the EJ
concerns potentially faced by communities in these areas. Thus, we
believe that finalizing our proposed action will help to reduce
disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts
on disadvantaged communities in the Hayden and Miami areas and that
this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898.

IV. Final Action

    Under CAA section 179(c)(1), the EPA is taking final action to
determine that the Hayden Pb NAA failed to attain the 2008 Pb primary
and secondary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 3,
2019. The EPA is also taking final action to determine that the Hayden
and Miami SO2 NAAs failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of October 4,
2018. As a result of these determinations, the State of Arizona is
required under CAA section 179(d) to submit revisions to the Arizona
SIP for the Hayden Pb, Hayden SO2, and Miami SO2
NAAs that, among other elements, provide for attainment of the
respective standards as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
January 31, 2027. At this time, we are not prescribing additional
measures for the Pb and SO2 SIP revisions under CAA section
179(d)(2). The SIP revisions required under CAA section 179(d) are due
for submittal to the EPA by January 31, 2023. This final action also
triggers the implementation of contingency measures adopted in these
areas under CAA section 172(c)(9).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore
was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This final
action requires the State to adopt and submit SIP revisions to satisfy
CAA requirements and does not itself directly regulate any small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more, as described in UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action itself
imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments,
or the private sector. This action determines that the Hayden Pb NAA
and the Hayden and Miami SO2 NAAs failed to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment dates and triggers existing statutory
timeframes for the State to submit SIP revisions. Such a determination
in and of itself does not impose any Federal intergovernmental mandate.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The finding of failure to attain the Pb and
SO2 NAAQS does not apply to tribal areas, and the rule will
not impose a burden on Indian reservation lands or other areas where
the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction within the Hayden Pb, Hayden SO2 and Miami
SO2 nonattainment areas. Thus, this rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs

on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175. Nonetheless, the EPA notified the San Carlos Apache Tribe
of the San Carlos Reservation, which borders the eastern boundary of
the Hayden Pb and Hayden SO2 NAAs, of this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the effect of this action is to trigger
additional planning requirements under the CAA. This action does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898. The documentation for this decision
is contained in section III of this document. The docket for this
rulemaking action includes a summary of environmental justice
indicators for communities in the Hayden and Miami areas obtained using
the EPA's EJSCREEN tool.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Pollution, Sulfur
dioxide.

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

    Dated: January 21, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends chapter I,
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.125 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.125  Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur Oxides

* * * * *
    (h) Effective March 2, 2022, the EPA has determined that the Hayden
and Miami nonattainment areas failed to attain the 2010 1-hour primary
sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018. This
determination triggers the requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the
State of Arizona to submit a revision to the Arizona SIP for the Hayden
and Miami nonattainment areas to the EPA by January 31, 2023. The SIP
revision must, among other elements, provide for attainment of the 1-
hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the Hayden and Miami
SO2 NAAs as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
January 31, 2027.

0
3. Section 52.127 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.127  Control strategy and regulations: Lead.

    (a) Effective March 2, 2022, the EPA has determined that the Hayden
nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 primary and secondary lead
(Pb) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of October 3, 2019. This determination triggers the
requirements of CAA section 179(d) for the State of Arizona to submit a
revision to the Arizona SIP for the Hayden nonattainment area to the
EPA by January 31, 2023. The SIP revision must, among other elements,
provide for attainment of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in the Hayden Pb NAA as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 31, 2027.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2022-01595 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31203-31205]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14284]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83539; File No. SR-BX-2018-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot
Period for the Retail Price Improvement Program Until December 31, 2018

June 28, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 21, 2018, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange''), filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period for the Exchange's
Retail Price Improvement (``RPI'') Program (the ``Program''), which is
set to expire on June 30, 2018, for an additional period, to expire on
December 31, 2018.
    The Exchange has designated July 1, 2018 as the date the proposed
rule change becomes effective.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the pilot period of the RPI
Program,\3\ currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2018, for an
additional period, to expire on December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73702 (November 28,
2014), 79 FR 72049 (December 4, 2014) (``RPI Approval Order'') (SR-
BX-2014-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In November 2014, the Commission approved the RPI Program on a
pilot basis.\4\ The Program is designed to attract retail order flow to
the Exchange, and allow such order flow to receive potential price
improvement. The Program is currently limited to trades occurring at
prices equal to or greater than $1.00 per share. Under the Program, a
new class of market participant called a Retail Member

Organization (``RMO'') is eligible to submit certain retail order flow
(``Retail Orders'') \5\ to the Exchange. BX members (``Members'') are
permitted to provide potential price improvement for Retail Orders in
the form of non-displayed interest that is priced more aggressively
than the Protected National Best Bid or Offer (``Protected NBBO'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id.
    \5\ A ``Retail Order'' is defined in BX Rule 4780(a)(2) by
referencing BX Rule 4702, and BX Rule 4702(b)(6) says it is an order
type with a non-display order attribute submitted to the Exchange by
a RMO. A Retail Order must be an agency order, or riskless principal
order that satisfies the criteria of FINRA Rule 5320.03. The Retail
Order must reflect trading interest of a natural person with no
change made to the terms of the underlying order of the natural
person with respect to price (except in the case of a market order
that is changed to a marketable limit order) or side of market and
that does not originate from a trading algorithm or any other
computerized methodology.
    \6\ The term Protected Quotation is defined in Chapter XII, Sec.
1(19) and has the same meaning as is set forth in Regulation NMS
Rule 600(b)(58). The Protected NBBO is the best-priced protected bid
and offer. Generally, the Protected NBBO and the national best bid
and offer (``NBBO'') will be the same. However, a market center is
not required to route to the NBBO if that market center is subject
to an exception under Regulation NMS Rule 611(b)(1) or if such NBBO
is otherwise not available for an automatic execution. In such case,
the Protected NBBO would be the best-priced protected bid or offer
to which a market center must route interest pursuant to Regulation
NMS Rule 611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Program was approved by the Commission on a pilot basis running
one-year from the date of implementation.\7\ The Commission approved
the Program on November 28, 2014.\8\ The Exchange implemented the
Program on December 1, 2014 and the pilot has since been extended for a
one year period twice and for an additional six month period with it
now scheduled to end on June 30, 2018.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3 at 72053.
    \8\ Id. at 72049.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76490 (November 20,
2015), 80 FR 74165 (November 27, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-073); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 79446 (December 1, 2016), 81 FR 88290
(December 7, 2016) (SR-BX-2016-065); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 82192 (December 1, 2017), 82 FR 57809 (December 7, 2017) (SR-BX-
2017-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the Program
    The Exchange established the RPI Program in an attempt to attract
retail order flow to the Exchange by potentially providing price
improvement to such order flow. The Exchange believes that the Program
promotes competition for retail order flow by allowing Exchange members
to submit Retail Price Improvement Orders (``RPI Orders'') \10\ to
interact with Retail Orders. Such competition has the ability to
promote efficiency by facilitating the price discovery process and
generating additional investor interest in trading securities, thereby
promoting capital formation. The Exchange believes that extending the
pilot is appropriate because it will allow the Exchange and the
Commission additional time to analyze data regarding the Program that
the Exchange has committed to provide.\11\ As such, the Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to extend the current operation of the
Program.\12\ Through this filing, the Exchange seeks to amend BX Rule
4780(h) \13\ and extend the current pilot period of the Program until
the earlier of approval of the filing to make the Program permanent or
December 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A Retail Price Improvement Order is defined in BX Rule
4780(a)(3) by referencing BX Rule 4702 and BX Rule 4702(b)(5) says
that it is as an order type with a non-display order attribute that
is held on the Exchange Book in order to provide liquidity at a
price at least $0.001 better than the NBBO through a special
execution process described in Rule 4780.
    \11\ See RPI Approval Order, supra note 3 at 72051.
    \12\ Concurrently with this filing, the Exchange has submitted a
request for an extension of the exemption under Regulation NMS Rule
612 previously granted by the Commission that permits it to accept
and rank the RPI orders in sub-penny increments. See Letter from
Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and
Secretary, Nasdaq BX, Inc. to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 21, 2018.
    \13\ The Exchange notes that the proposed amendment to BX Rule
4780(h) would amend the current version of BX Rule 4780(h), which
the Exchange also proposes to amend as part of the Exchange's filing
to make BX Rule 4780(h) permanent. See SR-BX-2018-025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the pilot period for the RPI
Program is consistent with these principles because the Program is
reasonably designed to attract retail order flow to the exchange
environment, while helping to ensure that retail investors benefit from
the better price that liquidity providers are willing to give their
orders. Additionally, as previously stated, the competition promoted by
the Program may facilitate the price discovery process and potentially
generate additional investor interest in trading securities. The
extension of the pilot period will allow the Commission and the
Exchange to continue to monitor the Program for its potential effects
on public price discovery, and on the broader market structure.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change extends an established pilot program for an
additional period, to expire on December 31, 2018, thus allowing the
RPI Program to enhance competition for retail order flow and contribute
to the public price discovery process.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\17\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of

investors and the public interest, because waiver would allow the pilot
period to continue uninterrupted after its current expiration date of
June 30, 2018, thereby avoiding any potential investor confusion that
could result from temporary interruption in the Program. For this
reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange did not provide this
notice, and it has requested that the Commission waive the
requirement for this proposed rule change in order to allow the
Program to continue uninterrupted. The Exchange asserts this would
benefit market participants and help to eliminate the potential for
investor confusion. For the same reasons stated above with regard to
the Commission's waiver of the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission permits this proposed rule change to be filed without
advanced written notice of the Exchange's intent to file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2018-026 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-BX-2018-026. 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 offices 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-BX-2018-026, and should be submitted on
or before July 24, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14284 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50429-50431]
[DOCID:fr31au07-153]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56305; File No. SR-NSX-2007-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Amendment of Its Rules in Light of Amendments to SEC
Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO

August 22, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 3, 2007 and July 6, 2007, National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NSX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change and
their corresponding amendments, as described in Items I and II below,
which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. NSX has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3 \ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend NSX Rules 11.21and 14.2(b)(7) in
light of the Commission's short sale regulation, Regulation SHO under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Certain provisions of Regulation
SHO adopted in the Commission's 2007 release regarding the price test
\4\ supercede the above NSX Rules related to short sales. As a result,
the Exchange is filing this rule change to bring those rules in line
with Regulation SHO, as now in effect. The text of the proposed rule
change is below. Additions are italicized and deletions are bracketed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55970 (June 28, 2007),
72 FR 36348 (July 3, 2007) (``Price Test Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RULES OF NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

* * * * *

CHAPTER XI

Trading Rules
* * * * *

Rule 11.21 Short Sales

    All short sale orders shall be identified as [either] a short sale
[or short sale exempt] when entered into the System. [Any marketable
order entered in the System that, if matched for execution, would
violate the short sale provisions of the Act or the rules and
regulations thereunder should be cancelled. The foregoing shall not be
in limitation of the Exchange's ability to adopt additional Rules,
interpretations or policies relating to short sales.]
* * * * *

CHAPTER XIV

Intermarket Trading System Plan
* * * * *

Rule 14.2 Intermarket Trading System Application

    (a) No change.
    (b) Any commitment to trade which is transmitted to a User to
another participating market center shall be firm and irrevocable for
the period of time following transmission as was chosen by the sender
of the commitment, and shall, at a minimum:
    (1)-(6) No change.
    (7) Reserved. [designate the commitment ``short'' or ``short
exempt'' whenever it is a commitment to sell short which, if it should
result in an execution in the market of the receiving market center,
would result in a short sale to which the provisions of paragraph (a)
of Rule 10a-1 under the Act would apply]; and
    (8) No change.
    (c)-(j) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On July 28, 2004, the Commission adopted certain provisions of a
new short sale regulation, designated Regulation SHO. On June 28, 2007,
the Commission amended Regulation SHO and also repealed Rule 10a-1
under the Act.\5\ We have reviewed the NSX Rules to eliminate those
rules which we believe are duplicative of, inconsistent with, or
otherwise superceded by, Regulation SHO and the repeal of Rule 10a-1
under the Act.\6\ Therefore, the Exchange is filing this proposed rule
change to amend those NSX rules that are affected by the Commission's
amended approach to short sale regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Price Test Adopting Release.
    \6\ Please note that NSX does not have any ETP Holder that is
not a member of another self-regulatory organization nor is NSX a
designated examining authority or a designated self-regulatory
organization for any ETP Holder. Accordingly, it does not subject
its members to short interest reporting that is mandated by the
other markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, in addition to the repeal of Rule 10a-1 under the Act, the
Commission added Rule 201(b) to Regulation SHO, prohibiting any SRO
from having a short sale price test. The Commission also amended Rule
200(g) of Regulation SHO to remove the requirement that a broker-dealer
mark a sell order of an equity security as ``short exempt,'' if the
seller is relying on an exception from a price test. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to amend NSX Rule 11.21 to remove the reference to
``short exempt.'' Additionally, the Exchange proposes to remove the
second sentence respecting the cancellation of violative orders because
there would be no ability to violate a rule that no longer exists.
Finally, the Exchange is eliminating the savings clause as duplicative
and restating an inherent authority of the Exchange.
    Further, the Exchange notes that NSX Rule 14.2(b)(7) regarding the
Intermarket Trading System Plan (the ``ITS Plan'') describes marking
requirements necessary to comply with Rule 10a-1 under the Act.\7\ In
light of the repeal of Rule 10a-1, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
this provision from its Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will be filing a separate rule change to
eliminate the entire chapter respecting the ITS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted below, the Exchange is filing the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness, with an operative date of July 6, 2007, which
is the same date as the effective date of Rule 201 and revised Rule
200(g) of Regulation SHO as well as the elimination of Rule 10a-1 under
the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Price Test Adopting Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) \10\ in particular in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. NSX believes
that the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to comply
with the amendments to SEC Rule 10a-1 and Regulation SHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSX has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
The Commission believes such waiver is consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest because it would allow the
proposed rule change to be effective on July 6, 2007, the compliance
date for the amendments to Rule 10a-1 and

Regulation SHO.\13\ For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposal to be operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day pre-operative
period, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's
impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2007-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2007-09. This file
number should be included in the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statement 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F. Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-NSX-2007-09 and should be
submitted on or before September 21, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17228 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55847-55848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-1003]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet
via teleconference, to review and discuss the results of the
``Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 05-17; Guidelines for
Addressing Cyber Risks at Maritime Transportation Security Act
Regulated Facilities'' task. This teleconference will be open to the
public.

DATES: The Committee will meet on Thursday, December 14, 2017, from
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This teleconference may close early if all
business is finished.

ADDRESSES: The teleconference will be broadcast via a web enabled
interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via
teleconference, dial 1-202-475-4000; the passcode to join is 764 990
20#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this
teleconference via the online web format, please log onto https://share.dhs.gov/nmsac/ and follow the online instructions to register for
this meeting. If you encounter technical difficulties, contact Mr. Ryan
Owens at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact
the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon
as possible.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the meetings, but if you want Committee members to
review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no
later than December 7, 2017. We are particularly interested in comments
on the issues in the ``Agenda'' section below. You must include
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number USCG-2017-
1003. Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical
difficulties, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted
without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov including any personal
information provided. You may review a Privacy Act and Security Notice
for the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and
use ``USCG-2017-1003'' in the ``Search'' box, press Enter, and then
click on the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee,
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop
7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code,
Appendix). The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee operates
under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. The National Maritime Security
Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime
security.

Agenda of Meeting

(1) Results of the Cyber Security Working Group

    The Committee will meet to review and discuss the results of the
Cyber Security Working Group to address the questions posed to the
Committee at the September public meeting in regards to the Navigation
and Vessel Inspection Circular 05-17; Guidelines for Addressing Cyber
Risks at Maritime Transportation Security Act Regulated Facilities.

(2) Public Comment Period

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/NMSAC by December 7, 2017.
    There will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting.
Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes and keep
their remarks to the topic of the Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular 05-17; Guidelines for Addressing Cyber Risks at Maritime
Transportation Security Act Regulated Facilities. Please note that the
public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the
last call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.

    Dated: November 17, 2017.
Jennifer F. Williams,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-25404 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71406-71407]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-8826-000]

Walsh, William V.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 17, 2019, William V. Walsh, submitted
for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d (b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8 (2019).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or

protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the
comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 7, 2019.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27880 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P