[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56202]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22453]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-9727-3]

Notification of an External Peer Review Meeting for the Draft
Framework for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of an external peer review meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Office of the Science Advisor announces that Versar,
Inc., a contractor to the EPA, will convene an independent panel of
experts to review the draft document, Framework for Human Health Risk
Assessment to Inform Decision Making. Any member of the public may
register to attend this peer review meeting as an observer. Time will
be set aside for observers to give brief oral comments on the draft
document at the meeting. The draft document is available via the
internet on the Risk Assessment Forum web page (http://www.epa.gov/raf/frameworkhhra.htm).

DATES: The peer review panel meeting on the draft document, Framework
for Human Health Risk Assessment to Inform Decision Making will be held
on October 9, 2012, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time, with registration beginning at 8:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City,
2799 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Internet: The draft document can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/raf/frameworkhhra.htm.
    Instructions: To attend the peer review meeting as an observer,
register no later than October 2, 2012 by calling Kathy Coon at Versar,
Inc., on<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 545 or toll free on<PHONE_NUMBER>;
sending a facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER> (subject line: HHRA Framework
Meeting; and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and
contact information in the body of the facsimile), or sending an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: HHRA Framework Meeting; and
include your name, title, affiliation, full address and contact
information in the body of the email). Space is limited, and
registrations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.
There will be a limited time for comments from the public at the peer
review meeting. Please inform Versar, Inc., in your registration
request, if you wish to make oral comments during the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Fitzpatrick, Office of the
Science Advisor, Mail Code 8105-R, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA has an established history of
conducting human health risk assessments. The final Framework is
intended to foster increased implementation of existing agency guidance
for conducting human health risk assessments and improve the utility of
risk assessment in the decision-making process.
    In developing the draft Framework, the relevant recommendations
presented in the National Research Council's report Science and
Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment have been taken into
consideration. Specifically, the recommendations that the EPA formalize
and implement planning, scoping and problem formulation early in the
risk assessment process and that the agency adopt a framework for risk-
based decision-making are included in this Framework.
    The draft Framework highlights the important roles of planning and
scoping as well as problem formulation in designing a human health risk
assessment process. In accord with long-standing agency policy, it also
emphasizes the importance of both scientific review and public
involvement. The Framework presents the concept of ``fit for purpose''
to address the development of risk assessments and associated products
that are for informing risk management decisions. The final Framework
will also highlight the agency's emphasis on the importance of
transparency in human health risk assessment and decision-making
processes.
    This document is not intended to supersede existing agency
guidance; instead, by citing and discussing existing guidance in the
context of the proposed framework, it is intended to foster more
effective implementation of that guidance.
    The EPA previously announced the release of the draft Framework for
a 60 day comment period (77 FR 44613), which ends on September 28,
2012. Public comments submitted during the public comment period may be
viewed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2012-0579. The EPA will forward all public comments to Versar, Inc.,
for distribution to the members of the review panel. The external
review draft does not represent agency policy. As it finalizes the
draft document, the EPA intends to consider the comments from the
external peer review meeting, along with public comments received by
September 28, 2012, in accordance with 77 FR 44613.

    Dated: September 6, 2012.
Glenn Paulson,
Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2012-22453 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12195-12198]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63976; File No. SR-NYSE-2011-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Adopting Supplementary Material .20 to Rule 123C To Provide for the
Treatment of Short Sale Orders at the Close

February 25, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on February 24, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Supplementary Material .20 to Rule
123C (The Closing Procedures) to provide for the treatment of short
sale orders at the close, for purposes of execution priority, as orders
subject to tick restrictions \4\ during a period when a restriction on
the prices at which covered securities may be sold short is in effect
(``Short Sale Price Test'') under NYSE Rule 440B \5\ (which implements
the provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation

SHO (``Rule 201'') under the Act).\6\ The text of the proposed rule
change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and http://www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Orders subject to tick restrictions are sell ``plus'' and
buy ``minus'' orders. See NYSE Rule 13.
    \5\ Amendments to NYSE Rule 440B to implement the short sale
price test restriction requirements of Rule 201 are the subject of a
separate rule filing. See SR-NYSE-2011-05.
    \6\ 17 CFR 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    On February 26, 2010, the Commission adopted amendments to Rule
201.\7\ Among other things, the amendments establish a short sale-
related circuit breaker that, if triggered with respect to a covered
security,\8\ imposes a short sale price test.\9\ Amended Rule 201
became effective on May 10, 2010 and the compliance date for the Rule
is February 28, 2011.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Amendments to Regulation SHO, Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61595 (Feb. 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (Mar. 10, 2010)
(``Rule 201 Adopting Release''). In the Rule 201 Adopting Release,
the Commission also adopted amendments to Rule 200(g) of Regulation
SHO to include a ``short exempt'' marking requirement. 17 CFR
242.200(g). See also Division of Trading and Markets: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO
(``T&M FAQs'').
    \8\ The term ``covered security'' shall have the same meaning as
in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(1) defines the term
``covered security'' to mean any ``NMS stock'' as defined under Rule
600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS
defines an ``NMS stock'' as ``any NMS security other than an
option.'' Rule 600(b)(46) of Regulation NMS defines an ``NMS
security'' as ``any security or class of securities for which
transaction reports are collected, processed, and made available
pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, or an effective
national market system plan for reporting transactions in listed
options.'' 17 CFR 242.201(a)(1); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47); and 17 CFR
242.600(b)(46).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.201(b).
    \10\ Rule 201 Adopting Release, 75 FR 11232. The Rule 201
compliance date, originally set for November 10, 2010, was extended
to February 28, 2011 in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63247
(Nov. 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (Nov. 9, 2010). The May 10th effective
date and February 28th compliance date also apply to amended Rule
200(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 201(b) requires that trading centers,\11\ including the NYSE,
establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale
order of a covered security at a price that is less than or equal to
the current national best bid \12\ if the price of that covered
security decreases by 10% or more from the covered security's closing
price as determined by the listing market \13\ for the covered security
as of the end of regular trading hours on the prior day.\14\ In
addition, Rule 201(b) requires that trading centers establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to impose the Short Sale Price Test for the remainder of the
day and the following day (including the close on both days) when a
national best bid for the covered security is calculated and
disseminated on a current and continuing basis by a plan processor
pursuant to an effective national market system plan.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 201(a)(9) states that the term ``trading center''
shall have the same meaning as in Rule 600(b)(78) of Regulation NMS.
Rule 600(b)(78) defines a ``trading center'' as ``a national
securities exchange or national securities association that operates
an SRO trading facility, an alternative trading system, an exchange
market maker, an OTC market maker, or any other broker or dealer
that executes orders internally by trading as principal or crossing
orders as agent.'' 17 CFR 242.600(b)(78).
    \12\ The term ``national best bid'' shall have the same meaning
as in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(4) states that such
term shall have the same meaning as in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation
NMS. 17 CFR 242.201(a)(4); 17 CFR 242.600(b)(42).
    \13\ The term ``listing market'' shall have the same meaning as
in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201(a)(3) defines the term
``listing market'' to have the same meaning as the term ``listing
market'' as defined in the effective transaction reporting plan for
the covered security. 17 CFR 242.201(a)(3). See also 17 CFR
242.201(a)(2).
    \14\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(i).
    \15\ 17 CFR 242.201(b)(1)(ii). In addition, if the price of a
covered security declines intra-day by at least 10% on a day on
which the security is already subject to the short sale price test
restriction of Rule 201, the restriction will be re-triggered and,
therefore, will continue in effect for the remainder of that day and
the following day. See Rule 201 Adopting Release, 75 FR 11232,
11253, n. 290. Rule 201 does not place any limit on the frequency or
number of times the circuit breaker can be re-triggered with respect
to a particular stock. See T&M FAQs, at Q&A 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to implement the provisions of Rule 201, the Exchange has
proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 440B to establish the protocols for
determining when a Short Sale Price Test is to be triggered for a
covered security where the NYSE is the listing market. The proposed
Rule 440B amendments also provide that, except for certain permissible
and short exempt orders,\16\ during the period a Short Sale Price Test
is in effect for a covered security, Exchange systems will not execute
or display a short sale order with respect to that security at a price
that is less than or equal to the current national best bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See paragraphs (f) and (g) of proposed Rule 440B regarding
the treatment of permissible and short exempt orders. See SR-NYSE-
2011-05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 123C prescribes the method for determining the closing
print to be reported to the Consolidated Tape for each security at the
close of trading. Interest executed in the closing transaction is
allocated pursuant to NYSE Rule 72 and consistent with the hierarchy of
allocation of trading interest in Rule 123C(7). In the hierarchy of
allocation, better priced interest \17\ must receive an execution in
whole or in part (``must execute interest'') \18\ in order for the
security to close. Included in this category are MOC orders without
tick restrictions, MOC orders with tick restrictions that are eligible
to be executed at a price better than the closing price,\19\ better
priced limit orders, better priced limit on close (``LOC'') orders with
or without tick restrictions that are eligible for execution at a
better price than the closing price and Crowd interest.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Better priced interest means an order that is priced lower
than the closing price (in the case of an order to sell) or priced
higher than the closing price (in the case of an order to buy).
    \18\ A market on close (``MOC'') order without tick restrictions
must be executed in its entirety at the closing price. Marketable
limit orders receive an execution subject to the availability of
contra side volume.
    \19\ References in Rule 123C(7) to orders with tick restrictions
mean sell ``plus'' or buy ``minus'' orders, as defined in Rule 13.
    \20\ Crowd interest means verbal floor broker interest at the
market entered by the designated market maker (``DMM'') to interact
with orders in the Display Book. See note 21 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the ``must execute interest'' is satisfied, then any limit
orders represented in the Display Book \21\ at the closing price may be
used to offset the remaining imbalance.\22\ Next eligible for execution
in the hierarchy of allocation for the closing transaction are LOC
orders without tick restrictions limited to the closing price, then MOC
orders that have tick restrictions which limit the order's price to the
price of the

closing transaction,\23\ followed by LOC orders limited to the price of
the closing transaction that have tick restrictions, ``G'' orders,\24\
and finally closing offset orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Display Book system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book system receives and displays
orders to the DMM, contains order information, and provides a
mechanism to execute and report transactions and published reports
to the Consolidated Tape. The Display Book system is connected to a
number of other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison,
surveillance, and reporting information to customers and other
market data and national market systems.
    \22\ DMM interest, including better priced DMM interest entered
into the Display Book prior to the closing transaction that is
eligible to participate in the closing transaction is always
included in the hierarchy of execution as if it were interest equal
to the price of the closing transaction.
    \23\ For example, the last sale on the Exchange was at a price
of $46.00 on a minus tick, the closing price is $46.01, all sell
plus MOC orders are limited to the closing price of $46.01 because
the closing transaction would be the next plus tick.
    \24\ See Section 11(a)(1)(G) of the Act. G orders are orders for
an Exchange member's own account where the member meets a business
mix test that requires it to be primarily engaged in the business of
underwriting and distributing securities, selling securities to
customers, and/or acting as a broker and provided more than 50% of
its gross revenues is derived from such businesses and related
activities. G orders on the NYSE are required to yield priority,
parity and precedence to non-G orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to establish the execution priority for short
sale orders at the close during a period when the Short Sale Price Test
is in effect. As provided for in proposed Rule 440B(h)(3), when the
Short Sale Price Test is in effect, Exchange systems will, in
connection with the closing transaction, re-price all short sale market
orders and short sale orders limited to the last published Exchange bid
or lower to one minimum price increment above the last published
Exchange bid. If the closing price will be at or below the last
published Exchange bid, such re-priced short sale orders will not
participate in the close. If the closing price is above the last
published Exchange bid, the re-priced short sale orders may participate
in the closing transaction, depending on whether the proposed closing
price is the same as the re-priced order, or if the re-priced order is
priced better than the closing price. If the re-priced order is priced
better than the closing price, such re-priced short sale order will
participate in the closing transaction.\25\ If the re-priced order is
priced at the same price as the closing price, such re-priced short
sale order plus all other short sale orders limited at that price \26\
may (but are not required to) participate in the closing transaction
consistent with how Rule 123C(7)(b) treats market or limit orders with
tick restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Rule 123C(7)(a).
    \26\ These would include short sale orders that were already
priced above the last published Exchange bid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange therefore proposes to add new Supplementary Material
.20 to Rule 123C providing that short sale orders for a covered
security during a period when a Short Sale Price Test is in effect will
be treated, for purposes of execution at the close under Rule
123C(7)(b), as orders that have tick restrictions.\27\ Thus, short sale
orders that are eligible to participate in the closing transaction and
that are priced at the same price as the closing transaction will be
treated in the same manner as sell ``plus'' and buy ``minus'' tick
restrictive orders priced at the closing price.\28\ As a result, re-
priced short sale orders priced at the closing price will be eligible
for participation at the close following limit orders represented in
the Display Book with a price equal to the closing price and LOC orders
with a price equal to the closing price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange will not be making any changes in its opening
and re-opening procedures in connection with the implementation of
the short sale price test restrictions of Rule 201. The presence of
short sale price test restrictions will have no impact on the
priority of orders eligible to participate in openings and re-
openings.
    \28\ See NYSE Rule 13 (defining Sell ``Plus''-Buy ``Minus''
Orders). A sell ``plus'' order is an order to sell a specified
amount of stock as long as the price of the trade is not lower than
the price of the last sale if the last sale was a plus or zero plus
tick, and is not lower than the last sale plus the minimum change in
the price if the last sale was a minus or zero minus tick. A buy
``minus'' order is an order to buy a specified amount of stock as
long as the price to be executed is not higher than the price of the
last sale if the last sale was a minus or zero minus tick, and is
not higher than the price of the last sale less than the minimum
change in the price of the stock if the last sale was a plus tick or
zero plus tick.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\29\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\30\ in particular, in that it is designed to, among
other things, 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. The proposal is designed to
implement the provisions of Rule 201 of Regulation SHO by establishing,
maintaining and enforcing written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent the execution or display of a short sale order of a
covered security at the close in violation of the Short Sale Price Test
established in that rule. To that end, the proposed rule change will,
among other things, amend the Exchange's procedures for determining the
closing price by treating short sale orders as orders subject to tick
restrictions during a period when a Short Sale Price Test is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe 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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \31\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\32\
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 prior to
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)(iii) of the Act \33\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \35\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\36\ 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 proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission hereby
grants the request. Waiving the 30-day operative delay will allow the
Exchange to implement the proposed amendments by February 28, 2011,
which, as noted by the Exchange, is the compliance date for amendments
to Regulation SHO under the Act. By waiving the operative delay, the
Exchange will be able to comply with the amendments to Regulation SHO
by February 28, 2011. Therefore, the Commission believes it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to
waive the 30-day operative delay and

designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \36\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \37\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-NYSE-2011-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-06. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also
be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office
and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com. 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-NYSE-2011-06 and should be
submitted on or before March 25, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4894 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 916-918]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30971]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73972; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-126]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Nasdaq's Rule Governing Modification of Orders in the Event of
an Issuer Corporate Action Related to a Dividend, Payment or
Distribution

December 31, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 18, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.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
    Nasdaq Rule 4761 addresses the treatment of quotes/orders in
securities that are the subject of issuer corporate actions related to
a dividend, payment or distribution. The rule applies to any trading
interest that is carried on the Nasdaq Market Center book overnight. As
a general matter, Nasdaq cancels open quotes/orders in the event of any
corporate action related to a dividend, payment or distribution, on the
ex-date of the action. The cancellation occurs immediately prior to the
opening of trading at 4 a.m. on the ex-date of the corporate action,
and the member receives a cancellation notice, so that it can, if it
desires, reenter the order at the commencement of trading on the ex-
date.
    Prior to 2013, Nasdaq Rule 4761 provided for a complex variety of
adjustments of quotes and orders carried on the Nasdaq book overnight;
depending on the nature of the

corporate action, these adjustments might result in the cancellation of
a quote/order or an adjustment of its price and/or size to reflect the
impact of the corporate action. In April 2013, Nasdaq filed an
amendment to the rule to provide that Nasdaq would cancel all open
quotes/orders in the event of any corporate action.\3\ The proposal
reflected a conclusion that the rule was excessively complex and had
given rise to certain non-material discrepancies between the rule as
written and its application in Nasdaq's systems. Subsequently, in
response to member demand for assistance with order management with
respect to certain common types of corporate action, Nasdaq amended the
rule again to offer limited, optional functionality to allow open
orders to be adjusted, rather than cancelled.\4\ As written, the rule
provides for the possibility of order adjustment in the case of cash
dividends, forward stock splits, and combined cash dividends/forward
stock splits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69454 (April 25, 2013),
78 FR 25506 (May 1, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-068).
    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70113 (August 5, 2013),
78 FR 48746 (August 9, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-096).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal will expand the rule also to provide for adjustment in
the case of stock dividends and combined cash dividends/stock
dividends. The proposal reflects the conclusion, based on member
feedback, that actions resulting in the distribution of additional
stock should be treated similarly, regardless of whether they are
denominated as forward stock splits or stock dividends. Nasdaq will
make members aware of the effective date of the proposed change by the
issuance of a widely disseminated Equity Trader Alert.
    Under the current rule, a member may designate that all orders with
a time-in-force of good-till-cancelled \5\ that are entered through one
or more order entry ports specified by the member will be processed in
the manner specified below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Nasdaq notes that the use of good-till-cancelled orders is
not prevalent, accounting for significantly less than 1% of all
orders entered into Nasdaq. The vast majority of orders expire by
their terms at the end of regular market hours.
    \6\ The member may opt for this processing on a port-by-port
basis. Thus, the provisions providing for order adjustment are
applied to all good-till-cancelled orders entered through a port
that has been specified by the member for such processing. Because
members may obtain multiple ports, however, members may opt to apply
different processing to different orders based on the ports through
which they are entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Cash Dividend. If an issuer is paying a cash dividend, the
price of an order to buy is reduced by the amount of the sum of all
dividends payable, rounded up to the nearest whole cent; provided,
however, that there will be no adjustment if the sum of all dividends
is less than $0.01. For example, if the sum of all dividends is $0.381,
the price of the order will be reduced by $0.39. An order to sell will
be retained but will receive no price adjustment.
    (2) Forward Stock Split. If an issuer is implementing a forward
stock split, the order is cancelled if its size is less than one round
lot. If the order's size is greater than one round lot, (i) the size of
the order is multiplied by the ratio of post-split shares to pre-split
shares, with the result rounded downward to the nearest whole share,
and (ii) the price of the order will be multiplied by the ratio of pre-
split shares to post-split shares, with the result rounded down to the
nearest whole penny in the case of orders to buy and rounded up to the
nearest whole penny in the case of orders to sell.
    Under the change proposed in this filing, stock dividends will be
treated in the same manner as forward stock splits. Thus, any corporate
action in which additional shares are issued to holders of outstanding
shares will be treated in the manner described above.
    For example, if a member has entered a good-till-cancelled order to
buy 375 shares at $10.95 per share and the issuer implemented a split
or dividend under which an additional 1.25 shares would be issued for
each share outstanding, the size of the order would be adjusted to 843
shares (375 x 2.25/1 = 843.75, rounded down to 843) and the price of
the order would be adjusted to $4.86 per share ($10.95 per share x 1/
2.25 = $4.8667 per share, rounded down to $4.86 per share). An order to
sell at the same price and size would be adjusted to 843 shares with a
price of $4.87 per share ($4.8667 per share, rounded up).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nasdaq is also amending the example in the rule text to make
it clear that the prices provided therein are per share prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Combination of Cash Dividend and Forward Stock Split or Stock
Dividend. Under the current rule, if an issuer is implementing a cash
dividend and a forward stock split on the same date, the adjustments
described above will both be applied, in the order described in the
notice of the corporate actions received by Nasdaq.\8\ Under the
proposed rule change, this provision is being expanded to cover stock
dividends as well as forward stock splits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For securities listed on Nasdaq, Nasdaq receives notice of
corporate actions from the issuer and determines the applicable ex-
date. See Rule 11140. For securities listed on other exchanges,
Nasdaq receives notice from the listing exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is currently the case, changes to open orders will continue to
be effected immediately prior to the opening of the System at 4:00 a.m.
on the ex-date of the applicable corporate action. Open orders that are
retained are re-entered by the System (as adjusted above) immediately
prior to the opening of the System, such that they will retain time
priority over new orders entered at or after 4:00 a.m.\9\ Under the
proposed rule change, for corporate actions other than cash dividends,
forward stock splits, and stock dividends (or any combination thereof),
open orders are always cancelled, regardless of the port through which
they were entered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To the extent that multiple good-till-cancelled orders in a
particular security are adjusted and re-entered, such orders may not
retain the same time priority vis-[agrave]-vis one another that they
had on the preceding day. Rather, because such orders are entered
simultaneously through multiple order entry ports, their relative
priority is a function of the duration of system processing
associated with each individual order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
Nasdaq believes that the change, which is responsive to member input,
will facilitate transactions in securities and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market by providing members with additional optional
functionality that may assist them with order management with respect
to stock dividends in a manner similar to the current functionality
with respect to cash dividends and forward splits. Because forward
splits and stock dividends both involve the distribution of additional
stock to current stockholders, providing them with similar treatment
under the rule is logical and may help to prevent confusion on the part
of members that expect both types of corporate events to receive
consistent treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    Nasdaq 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. Specifically, by
offering market participants additional options with regard to
management of open orders, the change has the potential to enhance
Nasdaq's competitiveness with respect to other trading venues, thereby
promoting greater competition. Moreover, the change does not burden
competition in that it does not restrict the ability of members to
enter and update trading interest in Nasdaq.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-126 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-126.
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 Web site (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 Web site
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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; 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-
NASDAQ-2014-126, and should be submitted on or before January 28, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30971 Filed 1-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7432-7433]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4718-000]

Cocheco Falls Associates; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

    The license for the Cocheco Falls Dam Hydroelectric Project No.
4718 was issued for a period ending December 31, 2022.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 4718 is issued to
Cocheco Falls Associates for a period effective January 1, 2023,
through December 31, 2023, or until the issuance of a new license for
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place
on or before December 31, 2023, notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA
is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Cocheco Falls Associates is authorized to continue
operation of the Cocheco Falls Dam Hydroelectric Project under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of

a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA,
whichever comes first.

    Dated: January 30, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02298 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 79400]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Chapter 1

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0622]

Withdrawal of Two Proposed Rules

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of two proposed rules that published in the Federal Register
more than 5 years ago. These proposed rules are no longer considered
viable candidates for final action. FDA is taking this action because
these proposed rules are out of date.

DATES: The proposed rules are withdrawn on November 14, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Helmanis, Regulations Policy
and Management Staff, Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3326, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1990, FDA began a process of periodically conducting
comprehensive reviews of its regulation process, including reviewing
the backlog of notices of proposed rulemakings that were never
finalized. As FDA removed many proposed rules that had not been
finalized, the Agency was able to clean out the backlog and implement a
process of reviewing these proposed rules every 5 years. In the Federal
Register of December 12, 2008 (73 FR 75625), FDA withdrew four proposed
rules that were more than 5 years old that it did not intend to
finalize.
    Recently, FDA has conducted a review of proposed rules that are
more than 5 years old, and is announcing the withdrawal the following
two proposed rules:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Publication date and
                               Title of proposed rule            Docket No.             Reason for withdrawal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................  Availability for Public        1/18/2001, 00N-0989.....  FDA has reconsidered our
                            Disclosure and Submission to                             position on this issue and
                            FDA for Public Disclosure of                             deemed our concerns from
                            Certain Data and Information                             2001 outdated. We will
                            Related to Human Gene                                    continue to assess whether
                            Therapy or                                               rulemaking in this area is
                            Xenotransplantation.                                     necessary, and if so, we
                                                                                will proceed with a new
                                                                                proposed rule.
2........................  Crabmeat; Amendment of Common  4/23/1998, 94P-0043.....  This proposed rule is
                            or Usual Name Regulation.                                obsolete because FDA has
                                                                                created a new process that
                                                                                allows for routine updates
                                                                                to the seafood names
                                                                                without going through
                                                                                notice and comment
                                                                                rulemaking. See FDA's Guide
                                                                                to Acceptable Market Names
                                                                                for Seafood Sold in
                                                                                Interstate Commerce.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The withdrawal of these proposals identified in this document does
not preclude the Agency from reinstituting rulemaking concerning the
issues addressed in the proposals listed in the chart. Should we decide
to undertake such rulemakings in the future, we will re-propose the
actions and provide new opportunities for comment. Furthermore, this
notice is only intended to address the specific actions identified in
this document, and not any other pending proposals that the Agency has
issued or is considering. The Agency notes that withdrawal of a
proposal does not necessarily mean that the preamble statement of the
proposal no longer reflects the current position of FDA on the matter
addressed. You may wish to review the Agency's Web site (http://www.fda.gov) for any current guidance on the matter.

    Dated: November 8, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-27329 Filed 11-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62262-62268]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26179]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9986-75-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of South Dakota through the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016. South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). The EPA is finalizing
approval of South Dakota's determination that the State's regional haze
plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.

DATES: This rule will be effective January 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

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

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area\1\
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state (40 CFR
51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. On January 21, 2011, South
Dakota submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308, which the EPA fully approved.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South
Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of
the first implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted its Progress Report
which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first
period toward implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in the
State's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, the two Class I areas within
South Dakota, and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially
impacted by emissions from South Dakota; and a determination of the
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 19,
2018 (83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to approve South Dakota's Progress
Report. The details of South Dakota's submission and the rationale for
the EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM.

II. Response to Comments

    Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 18,
2018. The EPA received a total of 16 public comment submissions on the
proposed approval. All public comments received on this rulemaking
action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by
following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the
comments, the EPA has determined that 15 of the comment submissions are
outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fail to identify any
material issue necessitating a response. We received one comment letter
from the National Parks

Conservation Association (NPCA), containing two significant comments
that we are responding to here. Below is a summary of those comments
and the EPA's responses. Comment: In a comment letter dated April 18,
2018, the NPCA asserted that South Dakota's Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report and the EPA's analysis of the progress report fail to
meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) as neither mentions the Gerald Gentleman
Station in Nebraska. The commenter states that South Dakota's SIP and
RPGs relied on visibility modeling from the Central Regional Air
Planning Association (CENRAP) that assumed the installation of
scrubbers for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from
the Gerald Gentleman Station, which has a significant impact on South
Dakota's Class I areas. The commenter suggests that the lack of
requirements to install scrubbers and limit SO2 emissions
from the Gerald Gentleman Station constitutes an anthropogenic change
that impedes visibility progress. Finally, the commenter suggests the
lack of change in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman Station since the
baseline period ``impedes visibility progress'' and is a ``significant
change'' that the EPA's guidance suggests should be discussed to meet
the requirements of Sec.  51.308(g)(5).
    Response: We acknowledge that the Progress Report from South Dakota
does not include an assessment of emission changes from the Gerald
Gentleman Station. However, such an assessment is not required given
the facts about South Dakota's SIP, emission trends for Gerald
Gentleman, and visibility trends at the two Class I areas in South
Dakota. Changes in emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station are not
``significant changes'' within the meaning of this section of the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR). It should be noted that, South Dakota cannot
regulate emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska.
    Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR requires that periodic progress
reports contain an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred
during the implementation period including whether such changes were
anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility. The EPA provided guidance
that summarized and clarified the requirements for progress reports in
a document titled General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in
Development and Review of the Progress Reports).\3\ In relation to
Sec.  51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that ``[t]his requirement is
aimed at assessing whether any such significant emissions changes have
occurred within the state over the 5-year period since the SIP was
submitted, and whether emissions increases outside the state are
affecting a Class I area within the state adversely.'' \4\ Further, the
guidance principles specify that a ``significant change'' that can
``limit or impede progress'' could be ``either (1) a significant
unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions that occurred over the
5-year period (that is, an increase that was not projected in the
analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur (that is, a projected
decrease in emissions in the analysis for the SIP that was not
realized).'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division Geographic
Strategies Group, April 2013.
    \4\ Guidance Priciples, p. 15.
    \5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``significance'' of a change in emissions, if there is a
change, is evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual
context. It is clear from both Sec.  51.308(g)(5) and the guidance that
significance depends on whether a change in emissions is large enough
to have limited or impeded progress in improving visibility, with the
adopted RPGs being important benchmarks for progress.
    In this instance, there have not been significant changes in
emissions within the meaning of Sec.  51.308(g)(5). First, there has
not been a ``significant unexpected increase'' in emissions from
outside South Dakota, i.e., from the Gerald Gentleman Station. While
this first questions is perhaps more relevant where a new or modified
source has increased emissions over what was projected in the SIP, we
nonetheless assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman Station. A review
of emissions data submitted to the EPA Air Markets Program Data
indicates that the annual SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2
decreased in the 5-year period from the submittal of the initial SIP.
In the 5-year period before submittal of the initial SIP, 2006 through
2010, the annual SO2 emissions from the facility averaged
30,597 tons per year.\6\ In the following 5-year period, 2011 through
2016, the annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696 tons per
year.\7\ The average annual SO2 emissions between the two
periods decreased by 3,901 tons per year.\8\ As such, we conclude that
there has not been a significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic
emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled ``Gerald
Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from AMPD.xlsx'' located in the
docket.
    \7\ Ibid.
    \8\ Because no new SO2 controls have been installed
at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the reduction in emissions between
the two time periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a
decrease in heat input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, there was not a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As a preliminary matter, we
acknowledge that the RPGs for South Dakota's Class I areas are based on
the assumption that SO2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station would be reduced by the application of scrubbers that achieve
the ``presumptive BART'' emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.\9\ This
assumption was built into the projected emission inventory for air
quality modeling used to establish RPGs.\10\ However, this occurred
before Nebraska made its BART determination. It also occurred before
Nebraska completed its consultation with other states, including South
Dakota, in the development of its emission control strategies.\11\ In
the Agency's final action on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP, the EPA
addressed the disparity between the modeling assumptions for South
Dakota's RPGs and the SO2 BART emission limit the EPA chose
for the Gerald Gentleman Station.\12\ In response to comments on this
issue, the Agency noted that ``South Dakota had the opportunity to
comment on Nebraska's draft BART permits as well as the overall
regional haze SIP, and did not ask for additional emission reductions
from Nebraska.'' \13\ The Agency concluded that ``Nebraska did
establish a BART limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station and informed
South Dakota that its BART determination

deviated from what was included in the modeling [for RPGs], [and] the
fact that the final BART determination varied from the predictions is
not grounds for disapproving either SIP.'' \14\ Indeed, the content of
the long-term strategy (including BART controls) determines the RPGs,
not the opposite case. If not for the difference in timing between the
air quality modeling for the RPGs and Nebraska's BART determination,
South Dakota's RPGs would have reflected Nebraska's BART determination
for the Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more concisely, the
SO2 BART requirement for Gerald Gentleman Station is not
predicated on an assumption that was made in the modeling analysis
before BART was determined, but rather on the control measures that
were ultimately agreed upon between Nebraska and South Dakota through
the requisite consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For comparison, the SO2 annual emission rate (in
lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was about 0.58 lb/MMBtu
during 2002, which was the period used as the baseline by Nebraska
when it developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/MMBtu has
not changed appreciably since that time.
    \10\ The emissions projected for the Gerald Gentleman Station by
CENRAP were incorporated into the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to as the
PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South Dakota Class I areas were
determined by the WRAP modeling.
    \11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state consult with
another state if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s),
and that a state consult with other states if those other states'
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment at its Class I areas.
    \12\ 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012).
    \13\ Ibid, 40155.
    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, in the Agency's final action for Nebraska, the EPA
disapproved the SO2 BART determination for the Gerald
Gentleman Station because the State did not comply with the EPA's
regulations. The EPA also disapproved Nebraska's long-term strategy
insofar as it relied on the deficient SO2 BART determination
at the Gerald Gentleman Station. To address these deficiencies, in the
same action, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan relying
on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, or ``transport rule'') as
an alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald
Gentleman Station,\15\ with the result that the long-term strategy for
Nebraska does not require that SO2 scrubbers be installed at
the Gerald Gentleman Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs are intended
to reflect the emission reductions in states' long-term strategies. The
fact that Nebraska's long-term strategy ultimately contains a different
BART emission limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station than initially
assumed does not mean that any difference between the two constitutes
``a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did
not occur.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 52.143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guidance further clarifies that the requirement in Sec.
51.308(g)(5) is ``aimed at assessing . . . whether emissions increases
outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state
adversely. For those Class I areas where there is a significant overall
downward trend in both visibility and nearby emissions, we expect that
this assessment will point to those trends in support of a simple
negative declaration satisfying this requirement'' (emphasis
added).\16\ This means that if aggregate emissions influencing the
affected Class I areas are significantly declining and visibility
conditions are significantly improving, an upward ``change'' for one
contributing source relative to expectations is not significant. We
accordingly turn to the topic of aggregate emissions and visibility
trends for the Class I areas in South Dakota.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Principles, p. 15.
    \17\ 83 FR 11949-11950 (March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Progress Report, South Dakota compared the most recent
updated emission inventory data available at the time of Progress
Report development with the baseline emissions inventory used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan. The State's comparison showed that
the statewide emissions of key visibility impairing pollutants,
including SO2, had declined. For example, between the
baseline emission inventory and the most recent updated emission
inventory of 2011, South Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2
emissions declined by 8,285 tons per year. The emissions trends do not
suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would affect
achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
    In the Progress Report, South Dakota provided baseline visibility
conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently
available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress
Report development, the difference between these current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment from 2009-2013.\18\ In order to further assess
the trend in visibility as it relates to Sec.  51.308(g)(5), the EPA
has expanded on the analysis of visibility included in South Dakota's
Progress Report. In addition to the information and analysis provided
in the Progress Report, Table 1 below presents updated Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data
which shows that visibility for the two Class I areas in the State,
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, has continued to improve beyond
the 2009-2013 period considered by South Dakota. Table 1 shows a
continued downward trend in visibility impairment (in deciviews) at
both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks from the baseline time
period (2000-2004) to the most current time period (2012-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Ibid.
    \19\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database.
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx', available in
docket.
    \20\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012).

                                       Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas
                                                                                [Deciviews] \19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference                      Difference                      Difference
                          Class I area                            Baseline (2000- Current (2007-   (baseline vs.   More current    (baseline vs.   Most current    (baseline vs.   2018 RPG \20\
                                                                       2004)           2011)         current)       (2009-2013)    more current)    (2012-2016)    most current)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Badlands National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days..................................................            17.1            16.3            -0.8            15.7            -1.4            14.7            -2.4            16.3
20% Best Days...................................................             6.9             6.6            -0.3             5.8            -1.1             5.5            -1.4             6.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wind Cave National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days..................................................            15.8            14.9            -0.9            14.2            -1.6            13.6            -2.2            15.2
20% Best Days...................................................             5.1             4.4            -0.7             4.0            -1.1             3.6            -1.5             5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition to comparing visibility
improvement to the 2018 RPGs, we also compare monitored visibility (as
a 5-year rolling average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP). As
described in the RHR, the URP is the uniform rate of visibility
improvement that would need to be maintained during each implementation

period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by the end of
2064.\21\ While the RHR does not require that states compare monitored
visibility to the URP as part of their progress reports, the EPA has
done so here because it is instructive when considering visibility
trends in the context of Sec.  51.308(g)(5). Figures 1 and 2 show that
the visibility in recent years for both Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks is well below the RPGs. For example, for Badlands National Park,
the 2011 through 2016 5-year rolling average of the 20% haziest days is
14.7 deciviews, which is well below the 2018 RPG of 16.3 deciviews.
Moreover, the visibility for both Class I areas is below the URP in
recent years; at Badlands National Park, the 5-year rolling average of
the 20% haziest days is below the URP beginning in 2012 and extending
through the most recent year of available IMPROVE data (2016). Similar
trends are apparent for Wind Cave National Park. As with the emissions
trends, the visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South
Dakota's SIP that would adversely affect achievement of the RPGs for
Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A).
    \22\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database.
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Visibility Trends.xlsx,'
available in docket.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.001

    As previously stated, progress relative to the adopted RPGs is an
important benchmark in assessing whether an increase in the Gerald
Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions relative to the
expectations inherent in the SIP has ``limited or impeded progress in
improving visibility.'' While there would likely have been more
progress if the Gerald Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions had
been reduced even more over time than they have been, in the context of
improvements already in the first implementation period relative to the
RPGs and the URP for both Class I areas in South Dakota, we do not
consider any lack of emission reductions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station as having limited or impeded progress in improving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, we find that there has been no significant change in
anthropogenic emissions relative to what was expected under South
Dakota's regional haze SIP. Moreover, even if there had been such a
change, emissions and visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies
in South Dakota's SIP that would affect achievement of reasonable
progress for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. Given our
conclusions regarding Sec.  51.308(g)(5) here, we find that the absence
of a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station is not a failure to
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that
term is used in Sec.  51.308(g)(5) nor a shortcoming in South Dakota's
Progress Report that requires our disapproval of the Progress Report.
Consequently, consistent with the RHR and our guidance principles, we
are finalizing our finding that South Dakota has met the requirements
of Sec.  51.308(g)(5).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Because we are finding that South Dakota has not failed to
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that
term is used in Sec.  51.308(g)(5), we have not needed to reach a
conclusion as to whether such a failure in this particular situation
would be so important that it would require disapproval of the
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPCA also asserts that ``EPA has previously identified
the need for consultation between South Dakota and Nebraska in the next
planning period regarding the impacts of the Gerald Gentleman Station
on South Dakota's Class I areas,'' and asks the EPA to ``work with
South Dakota to include a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station in
its progress report.''
    Response: The Progress Report that is the subject of today's action
addresses the requirements of the first regional haze planning period.
When adopting long-term strategies and establishing RPGs for the second
regional haze planning period, extending to 2028, the RHR requires that
states once again ``consult with those states that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in [ ]
mandatory Class I area[s].'' \25\ As such, South Dakota will have an
opportunity to consult with Nebraska regarding SO2 controls
for the Gerald Gentleman Station in the second planning period.
Moreover, nothing in this final rule would prevent Nebraska, in
consultation with South Dakota or other

states, from assessing the need for SO2 controls at the
Gerald Gentleman Station as part of its long-term strategy for the
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPCA also asserts that the EPA does not adequately
address in the NPRM South Dakota's progress towards investigating and
developing a smoke management plan.\26\ The NPCA asserts that ``EPA's
analysis incorrectly states that `The Progress Report presents the
extensive information collected and analyzed to investigate the impacts
of a smoke management plan'.'' \27\ The NPCA acknowledges that the
South Dakota Progress Report discusses the impact of prescribed fire at
Wind Cave National Park, but asserts that the progress report does not
mention a smoke management plan specifically. The commenter
additionally asserts that the progress report does not include an
``update or information about South Dakota's progress towards
investigating and developing a smoke management plan.'' \28\ Finally,
the commenter requests that the EPA work with South Dakota to include
an update on South Dakota's examination of a smoke management plan as
the NPCA asserts that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that the status of
all control strategies be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Comment
Letter, p.2.
    \27\ Ibid.
    \28\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As this response to comment will show, South Dakota is
committed to investigating the impacts of prescribed burns and
wildfires and considering smoke management practices and a smoke
management plan; however, there is no smoke management plan currently
included in the SIP. Insofar as the comment implicates the adequacy of
the State's existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that our review of the
Progress Report is not a second review of the adequacy of that SIP, as
the public already had an opportunity to review and comment on it and
the EPA approved the SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South Dakota committed to
investigating these issues, it was appropriate for the State to include
an update on this investigation in the Progress Report and we find that
the State did so. Contrary to commenters' assertions, the SIP explains
that the State will:
     ``[I]nvestigate the impacts that a smoke management plan
for wild fires and prescribed burns will have on the 20% most impaired
days'' within the first planning period of 2013'';
     Investigate and determine whether the ``burning of grass
in and around the Class I areas'' warrants being covered under a smoke
management plan''; and
     Review IMPROVE data for a recent prescribed fire to see
what kind of impact the fire had on the organic carbon mass
concentration and to some extent the ammonia sulfide and ammonia
nitrate levels.
    Finally, the SIP explains that it is DENR's ``intention'' to
    [I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as well as other wildfires and
planned prescribed burns to determine at what level (e.g., size of
burn, distance from the Class I areas, combustible material) should a
wildfire or prescribed fire be included in the smoke management plan
and what best management practices can be used to minimize their
impacts on the 20% most impaired days in the Class I areas. The results
of this analysis will be adopted in the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan as part of our long term strategy. DENR will work
with the federal land managers, other state agencies, and local
governments during the development and implementation of the smoke
management plan.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 76 FR 76671 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Progress Report, as
explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report NPRM, describes
that the State has taken the following steps so far to investigate the
impacts of prescribed burns and natural fire on visibility in the first
planning period. The impacts of prescribed fires on the 20% most
impaired days at Wind Cave were investigated using the IMPROVE data
that was presented in their progress report.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also reviewed IMPROVE data for two recent prescribed
fires to see what kind of impact the fires had on the organic carbon
mass concentration and to some extent the ammonium sulfide and ammonium
nitrate levels. This data shows the impact of two prescribed fires
conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Cave National Park
in 2009 and 2010.\31\ The two examples of the IMPROVE data that show
that the NPS prescribed fires contributed to high levels of both
particulate organic mass and elemental carbon on both days.\32\
Finally, the Progress Report shows that natural fire has been
decreasing in its impact.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
    \32\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
    \33\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, regarding the State's intention to develop and
implement the smoke management plan, since the publication of the NPRM,
we learned that the State of South Dakota reconfirmed their intention
regarding the smoke management plan,\34\ as is described in its SIP to
participate in a Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) smoke
management workgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Memo to File EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672, available in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as described in South Dakota's progress report and the
NPRM, the State has worked in coordination with Federal Land Managers
to mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires. In its Progress Report,
the State explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South
Dakota have improved coordination and communications over the past few
years and plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of
prescribed fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B-
2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR
also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track
prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas.

In conclusion, as explained above, we find the State has provided an
adequate description of the status of the State's investigation of
smoke management measures. The State has investigated both prescribed
fire and wildfire and the impact of fire on the 20% most impaired days
at Class I areas, reviewed IMPROVE data, showed continued collaboration
with Federal Land Managers, and provided a description of their
intention to investigate, develop and implement and a smoke management
plan as is described in their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and confirm
our proposed finding that South Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP
commitment.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing without revisions its proposed approval of South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 Progress Report as meeting the applicable
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2019. 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, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.

Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

0
2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by adding a new entry for XXIII.
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report in numerical order to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            EPA effective   Final rule citation,
            Rule title               State effective date        date               date             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year         Submitted 01/27/2016.        1/2/2019   [Insert Federal
 Progress Report.                                                            Register citation],
                                                                             12/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-26179 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P