[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61041-61042]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0281]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Oceanport Creek, Oceanport, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning the New Jersey Transit Rail Operations (NJTRO)
Bridge across Oceanport Creek at mile 8.4, at Oceanport, New Jersey.
The bridge owner submitted a request to require a four-hour advance
notice for bridge openings year-round based upon infrequent requests to
open the draw over the last three years.
    The Coast Guard is withdrawing this notice of proposed rulemaking
because the data supporting the bridge owner's request was based upon
the past three years of bridge openings; however, we received comments
in response to our notice of proposed rulemaking that advised us that
the Fort Monmouth Marina and Restaurant, located upstream from the
bridge, was closed during the three year time period when the bridge
opening data was collected. Subsequently, marina and restaurant has re-
opened and it is now anticipated that the number of bridge opening
requests will significantly increase.
    As a result of the above information we do not believe that a four-
hour advance notice for bridge openings is justified at this time and
that a four-hour advance notice for bridge openings would not meet the
reasonable needs of navigation.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on October 9,
2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0281] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the

``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Basis and Purpose

    On May 1, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation Oceanport Creek, Oceanport,
New Jersey'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 24654).
    The proposed rulemaking concerned the New Jersey Transit Rail
Operations (NJTRO) Bridge across Oceanport Creek at mile 8.4, at
Oceanport, New Jersey.
    The owner of the bridge, NJTRO, submitted a request to the Coast
Guard to change the drawbridge operating regulations to allow the
bridge to open year-round if at least a four-hour advance notice was
given. This request to change the regulations was based on the past
three years of bridge opening data which indicated the bridge only
received eight requests to open during that time period.
    The Coast Guard received three comment letters in response to our
notice of proposed rulemaking. The comment letters requested that the
Coast Guard deny the bridge owner's request to change the Drawbridge
Operation Regulations for the NJTRO Bridge because it would have a
detrimental effect on upstream businesses.
    The Fort Monmouth Marina and Restaurant located upstream from the
NJTRO Bridge recently re-opened as The Marina at Oceanport. The marina
was closed for the past three years as a result of damage sustained
from Hurricane Sandy.
    The bridge opening data used to support the bridge owner's proposal
to allow the NJTRO Bridge to require a four-hour advance notice year-
round based on the reduced number of bridge opening requests received
during the past three years was collected during the time period when
the marina located upstream was closed following Hurricane Sandy.

B. Withdrawal

    We are withdrawing this proposed rule as a result of the comments
and information received. It is anticipated that the number and
frequency of bridge opening requests will significantly increase now
that the marina has re-opened. As a result, we do not believe that a
four-hour advance notice requirement for bridge openings is justifiable
and that it would not meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

    Authority: This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-24170 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 66971]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1353-011.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Compliance filing 20201014 Compliance Filing to be
effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201014-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/20/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-55-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt
(Aethon United 52454) to be effective 10/14/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201014-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-56-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Name Change for Eversource to
be effective 11/14/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201014-5050.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-57-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate FT Service
Contract--Repsol to be effective 9/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/14/20.
    Accession Number: 20201014-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 15, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23284 Filed 10-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21774-21775]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10004]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-9993-16]

Interim Registration Review Decisions and Case Closures for
Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim
registration review decision for the following chemicals: 2,4-xylenol,
Bacillus popilliae, barium metaborate, biobor, cyhalofop-butyl,
emamectin benzoate, german cockroach pheromone, gibberellins, m-cresol,
methyl eugenol, methyl isopropenyl, prodiamine, rhamnolipid
biosurfactant, and salicylic acid.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information, contact: The
Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the
Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Dana Friedman, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 347-8827; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown
in the following table. The interim registration review decisions are
supported by rationales included in the docket established for each
chemical.

                            Table--Registration Review Interim Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration review case name and                                                       Chemical review manager
               No.                                    Docket ID No.                     and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-Xylenol, Case Number 4098....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0240                                Jonathan Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0670.
Bacillus popilliae, Case Number    EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0043                                Daniel Schoeff,
 4102<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Barium Metaborate, Case Number     EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0047                                Daniel Halpert,
 0632<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Biobor, Case Number 3029.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0453                                Megan Snyderman,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Cyhalofop-butyl, Case Number 7255  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0115                                Rachel Fletcher,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Emamectin Benzoate, Case Number    EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0483                                Susan Bartow,
 7607<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
German Cockroach Pheromone, Case   EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0261                                Daniel Schoeff,
 Number 6023<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gibberellins, Case Number 4110...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0939                                Cody Kendrick,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.

meta-Cresol (m-Cresol), Case       EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0244                                Jonathan Williams,
 Number 4027<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0670.
Methyl Eugenol, Case Number 6203.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0173                                Alexandra Boukedes,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0305.
Prodiamine, Case Number 7201.....  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0920                                Jordan Page,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Methyl Isopropenyl, Case Number    EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0253                                Alexandra Boukedes,
 6090<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0305.
Rhamnolipid Biosurfactant, Case    EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0275                                Cody Kendrick,
 Number 6085<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Salicylic Acid and Methyl          EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0328                                Donna Kamarei,
 Salicylate, Case Number 4080<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed
the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period
for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for
the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions
required in the interim decision have been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2019.
Charles Smith,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-10004 Filed 5-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8757-8760]
[DOCID:fr26fe09-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R09-RCRA-2008-0726; FRL-8771-8]

Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Nevada applied for final authorization of
revisions to its hazardous waste management program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that these changes satisfy all
of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization, and
is authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final rule.
EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior
proposal because we believe that this action is not controversial and
do not expect comments that oppose it. In the Proposed Rules section of
this Federal Register, EPA is also publishing a proposal to authorize
these changes to Nevada's hazardous waste management program. Unless we
receive written comments that oppose this authorization during the
comment period, the decision to authorize Nevada's changes to its
hazardous waste management program will take effect as provided below.
If we receive comments that oppose this action, we will publish a
document in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes
effect and the separate document in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register will serve as the proposal for purposes of this
rulemaking action. EPA will respond to public comments in a later final
rule based on the proposal. Nevada's application for program revision
is available for public review and comment. EPA may not provide further
opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time.

DATES: Final authorization will become effective on April 27, 2009
unless EPA receives adverse written comment on or before March 30,
2009. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal
of this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the
public that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
RCRA-2008-0726 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (prior to faxing, please notify the
EPA contact listed below).
     Mail: Send written comments to Jennifer Downey, Region IX
(WST-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
     Hand Delivery: Jennifer Downey, Region IX (WST-2), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the office's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-RCRA-
2008-0726. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.
    You may view and copy Nevada's application at the following
addresses: Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Protection, 901 So. Stewart Street, Ste.
4001, Carson City, NV 89701, Phone: 775/687-4670, Business Hours: 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. U.S. EPA Region IX Library-
Information Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: 415/947-4406, Business Hours: 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4
p.m. Monday through Thursday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Downey, Region IX (WST-2), 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/972-3342. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received Final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
revise their programs and ask EPA to authorize the revisions. Revisions
to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270,
273 and 279. States can also initiate their own changes to their
hazardous waste program and these changes must then be authorized.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    We conclude that Nevada's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Nevada Final authorization to
operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in this
rulemaking. Nevada has responsibility for permitting Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in
Indian Country) and for carrying out all authorized aspects of the RCRA
program described in its revised program application, subject to the
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA regulations
take effect as a matter of federal law in authorized States before
those States are authorized for such requirements. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in Nevada, including
issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of This Authorization Decision?

    A facility in Nevada subject to RCRA will now have to comply with
the authorized State requirements instead of the corresponding Federal
requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, facilities
must comply with any applicable Federally issued requirements, such as,
for example, HSWA regulations issued by EPA for which Nevada has not
received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted
by authorized State-issued requirements. Nevada continues to have
enforcement responsibilities under its State law to pursue violations
of its hazardous waste management program. EPA continues to have
independent authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which include, among others, the authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or
reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements (including State-issued statutes
and regulations that are authorized by EPA, and any applicable
federally-issued statutes and regulations) and suspend or revoke
permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This authorization action does not impose additional requirements
on the regulated community because the regulations for which Nevada is
being authorized are already effective under State law, and are not
changed by this authorization action.

D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before This Rule?

    EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view
this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose
this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now.
You may not have another opportunity to comment. In addition to this
rule, in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that proposes to authorize these State
program changes.

E. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action?

    If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will
withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal Register
before the rule becomes effective. EPA will then use the proposal
mentioned in the previous paragraph in making any further decision on
the authorization of the State program changes. EPA will also address
all public comments in a later final rule. If you want to comment on
this authorization, you must do so at this time.
    If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a
particular change to the State hazardous waste program, we will
withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program
changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the
date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal document will
specify which part of the authorization will become effective and which
part is being withdrawn.

F. What Has Nevada Previously Been Authorized For?

    Nevada initially received final authorization for the base RCRA
program on August 19, 1985 effective October 18, 1985 (50 FR 33359).
Nevada has since received authorization for all revisions to the
Federal RCRA program through June 1999, except for 40 CFR section
260.22 and the final rule published on April 12, 1989 (61 FR 16289)
addressing Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste. The following
Federal Register publication and effective dates apply to those
revisions: April 29, 1992 effective June 29, 1992 (57 FR 18083), May
27, 1994 effective July 26, 1994 (59 FR 27472), April 11, 1995
effective June 12, 1995 (60 FR 18358), June 24, 1996 effective August
23, 1996 (60 FR 32345), January 29, 1999 effective March 30, 1999 (64
FR 4596), and June 12, 2002 effective August 12, 2002 (67 FR 40229).

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With This Action?

    On May 27, 2004, August 30, 2004, January 25, 2005 and May 15,
2006, Nevada submitted final complete program revision applications for
changes and additions to the Federal RCRA implementing regulations that
occurred between July 7, 1999 and July 1, 2005, seeking authorization
of those changes, as well as miscellaneous changes to its previously
authorized regulations, in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make
an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments
that oppose this action, that Nevada's hazardous waste management
program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify
for final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants Nevada's final
authorization for the following program revisions:

1. Program Revision Changes for Federal Rules

    Nevada adopts by reference the Federal RCRA regulations in effect
as of July 1, 2005 at Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), section
444.8632 as modified by sections 444.86325.1(d) and (f), 444.8633 and
444.8634 adopted effective May 6, 2006. Nevada adopts the Federal
requirements under the state statutory authorities as found in the
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), sections 459.485, 490, 500 and 550
effective 2005. The Federal requirements for which the state is being
authorized are as follows:

RCRA Cluster X (Federal Rules Published From July 7, 1999 to June 30,
2000)

(Adopted by Nevada as indicated in section 4 of LCB Petition No. R-
2001-02 (filed with the Secretary of State on December 6, 2000) and
as amended by LCB Petition 2001-02 [LCB R-037-01] (filed with the
Secretary of State on October 25, 2001)).

Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors, Miscellaneous
Units, and Secondary Lead Smelters; Clarification of BIF
Requirements; Technical Correction to Fast-track Rule (64 FR 52828,
9/30/99 as amended 64 FR 63209, 11/19/99) (Checklist 182);
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV--Technical Corrections (64 FR
56469, 10/20/99) (Checklist 183);

Accumulation Time for Waste Water Treatment Sludges (65 FR 12378, 3/
8/00) (Checklist 184);
Vacatur of Organobromine Production Waste Listings (65 FR 14472, 3/
17/00) (Checklist 185);
Petroleum Refining Process Wastes--Clarification (65 FR 36365, 6/8/
00) (Checklist 187).

RCRA Cluster XI (Federal Rules Published From July 1, 2000 to June 30,
2001)

(Adopted by Nevada as indicated in section 4 of LCB Petition No. R-
2001-02 [LCB R-037-01] (filed with the Secretary of State on October
25, 2001)).

Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards; Technical corrections (65 FR
42292, 7/10/00 amended 66 FR 24270, 5/14/01 and 66 FR 35087, 7/3/01)
(Checklist 188);
Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes
(65 FR 67068, 11/8/00) (Checklist 189);
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV--Deferral for PCBs in Soil (65
FR 81373, 12/26/00) (Checklist 190);
Mixed Waste Rule 66 FR 27218, 5/16/01) (Checklist 191);
Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revisions (66 FR 27266, 5/16/01)
(Checklist 192A);
Land Disposal Restrictions Correction (66 FR 27266, 5/16/01)
(Checklist 192B);
Change of Official EPA Mailing Address (66 FR 34374, 6/28/01)
(Checklist 193).

RCRA Cluster XII (Federal Rules Published From July 1, 2001 to June 30,
2002)

(Adopted by Nevada as indicated in section 4 of LCB Petition No.
2002-11 [LCB R104-02] (filed with the Secretary of State on October
18, 2002)).

Mixture and Derived-From Rules Revision II (66 FR 50332, 10/3/01
amended 66 FR 60153, 12/3/01) (Checklist 194);
Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification and Listing
(66 FR 58258, 11/20/01 amended 67 FR 17119, 4/9/02) (Checklist 195);
CAMU Amendments (67 FR 2962, 1/22/02) (Checklist 196);
Interim Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste
Combustors (67 FR 6792, 2/13/02) (Checklist 197);
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Hazardous Waste Combustors (67
FR 6968, 2/14/02) (Checklist 198);
Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being Reclaimed as
Solid Wastes and TCLP Use With MGP Waste (67 FR 11251, 3/13/02)
(Checklist 199).

RCRA Cluster XIII (Federal Rules Published From July 1, 2002 to June
30, 2003)

(Adopted by Nevada as indicated in section 4 of LCB File No. R-126-
03 [SEC 2003-06] (filed with the Secretary of State on April 13,
2004) and as amended by LCB File No. R-208-03 [SEC 2003-08] (filed
with the Secretary of State on April 16, 2004)).

Zinc Fertilizers Made From Recycled Hazardous Secondary Material (67
FR 48393, 7/24/02) (Checklist 200);
Treatment Variance for Radioactively Contaminated Batteries (67 FR
62618, 10/7/02) (Checklist 201);
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors--Corrections 2 (67
FR 77687, 12/19/02) (Checklist 202).

RCRA Clusters XIV and XV (Federal Rules Published From July 1, 2003 to
June 30, 2005)

(Adopted by Nevada as indicated in LCB File Number R175-05,
effective May 4, 2006).

Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Clarification (68 FR 44659,
7/30/03) (Checklist 203);
National Environmental Performance Track Program (69 FR 21737, 4/22/
04, as amended 69 FR 62217, 10/25/04) (Checklist 204);
NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Final
Rule (69 FR 22601, 4/26/04) (Checklist 205);
Nonwastewaters from Dyes and Pigments (70 FR 9138, 2/24/05)
(Checklist 206);
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Rule (70 FR 10776, 3/4/05, as
amended 70 FR 35034, 06/16/05) (Checklist 207);
SW-846 Methods Innovation Rule (70 FR 34538, 06/14/05) (Checklist
208).

2. Miscellaneous Changes

    During a review of Nevada's regulations in 2002, EPA identified a
variety of changes that Nevada had made to provisions EPA had
previously authorized, as well as a number of State provisions that
have never been authorized. In its program revision applications
described in Section G, Nevada also addressed additional State-
initiated changes. These miscellaneous changes, which are listed
following this paragraph, generally (1) update the CFR reference dates
to conform with the State's adoption of the Federal regulations, (2)
clarify and make the State's regulations more internally consistent, or
(3) bring the State regulations closer to the Federal language. EPA has
evaluated the changes addressed in this section and has determined that
the State's authorized hazardous waste program, as amended by these
provisions, remains equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal RCRA program for which the State is
authorized.
    Nevada Administrative Code (NAC), as amended effective May 4,
2006, sections 444.84225 ``Class 3 modification''; 444.84235
``Delisted waste''; 444.8427 ``facility for community recycling'';
444.84275 ``facility for community storage''; 444.8428 ``facility
for the management of hazardous waste''; 444.843 ``hazardous waste''
except (b) and (c); 444.8432 ``management of hazardous waste'';
444.84335 ``new or expanding facility for the management of
hazardous waste''; 444.84375; 444.850(2); 444.8546 ``facility for
the management of hazardous waste''; 444.8565 ``hazardous waste''
except 444.8565(b); 444.861 ``used oil''; 444.8618; 444.86325(1)(a);
444.86325(1)(b); 444.8671; 444.8675(1)-(4); and 444.8688.

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?

    At NAC section 86325.1(f), Nevada has not adopted the Federal
exemption at 40 CFR 264.1050(h) and 265.1050(g), as addressed in the
final rule for Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks (69
FR 22602, April 26, 2004; Checklist 205), thus the State's regulation
is more stringent than the Federal requirement. In addition, Nevada is
more stringent with respect to the July 30, 2003 final rule for the
Recycled Used Oil Management Standards (68 FR 44659; Checklist 203)
because at NAC 86325.1(d), the State excludes 40 CFR 261.5(j) from its
incorporation by reference. In contrast to the Federal code which
directs conditionally-exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste
mixed with used oil to be handled according to the Part 279 standards
(used oil), Nevada subjects such mixed wastes to its hazardous wastes
regulations. Other than the April 26, 2004 and July 30, 2003 final
rules, Nevada incorporates by reference the remaining Federal rules
listed in Section G; therefore, there are no significant differences
between the remaining Federal rules and the revised State rules being
authorized today.
    There is an outstanding issue in the revised Nevada program that
will not be authorized at this time. The issue is discussed in detail
here in order to alert the regulated community to the potential
conflict between the Federal and State programs as they currently
exist. The issue concerns Nevada's adoption of a program that regulates
antifreeze that is recycled and that either exhibits the toxicity
characteristic of hazardous waste, or is a listed hazardous waste in
the state of origin. Nevada's program requirements may be less
stringent than the federal program, and therefore EPA is not
authorizing Nevada's spent antifreeze recycling program at this time.
Generators and recyclers of used antifreeze determined to be hazardous
waste must continue to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 261.6(b)-
(d) ``Requirements for Recyclable Materials'' as adopted by reference
by Nevada.

I. Who Handles Permits After The Authorization Takes Effect?

    NDEP will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. Section
3006(g)(1) of RCRA gives EPA the authority to issue or deny permits or
parts of permits for requirements for which the state is not
authorized. Therefore, whenever EPA adopts standards under HSWA for

activities or wastes not currently covered by the authorized program,
EPA may process RCRA permits in Nevada for the new or revised HSWA
standards until NDEP has received final authorization for such new or
revised HSWA standards. EPA and NDEP have agreed to a joint permitting
process for facilities covered by both the authorized program and
standards under HSWA for which the State is not yet authorized, and for
handling existing EPA permits after the State receives authorization.

J. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Nevada?

    Nevada is not being authorized to operate any portion of the
hazardous waste management program in Indian country. Nevada is not
authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country
within the State, which includes the following: The Confederated Tribes
of the Goshute Reservation; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe; Ely Shoshone
Tribe; Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes; Fort Mohave Indian
Tribe; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians; Lovelock Paiute Tribe; Moapa
Band of Paiute Indians; Paiute-Shoshone Tribe of the Fallon Reservation
and Colony; Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe; Reno-Sparks Indian Colony;
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Reservation; Summit Lake Paiute
Tribe; Te-Moak Tribes of Western Shoshone Indians; Walker River Paiute
Tribe; Washoe Tribe; Winnemucca Indian Colony; Yerington Paiute Tribe;
and the Yomba Shoshone Tribe. This authorization action has no effect
in Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the
RCRA program in Indian country within the State.

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Nevada's Hazardous Waste
Management Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
management program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by
referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve
the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart DD for this authorization of
Nevada's program changes.

L. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule only authorizes hazardous waste requirements pursuant to
RCRA 3006 and imposes no requirements other than those imposed by State
law. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable executive orders and
statutory provisions as follows:

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from its
review under Executive Order (EO) 12866.

2. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132 does not apply to this rule because it will not have
federalism implications (i.e., substantial direct effects on the State,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government) as described in EO 13132.

6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    EO 13175 does not apply to this rule because it will not have
tribal implication (i.e., substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes).

7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    This rule is not subject to EO 13045 because it is not economically
significant and it is not based on health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to EO 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866.

9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA approves State programs as long as they meet criteria required
by RCRA, so it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in
its review of a State program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets
the requirements of RCRA. Thus, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advance Act does not apply to this rule.

10. Congressional Review Act

    EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other information
required by the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication 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). This action will be effective on April
27, 2009.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E9-4121 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58260-58261]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2615-037]

FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC; Madison Paper Industries; Merimil
Limited Partnership; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for a new license for the 4.18-megawatt
Brassua Hydroelectric Project, located on the Moose River, in Somerset
County, Maine, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (FEA)
for the project.
    The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
effects of continued operation of the project and concludes that
continued operation, with appropriate environmental measures, would not
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the FEA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public

Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Steve Kartalia at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 14, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24092 Filed 9-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 187 (Thursday, September 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54257-54259]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21209]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93120; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 8.601-E (Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares) To Provide for the Use of Custom Baskets

September 24, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On July 28, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E (Active Proxy Portfolio Shares)
to provide for the use of custom baskets consistent with the exemptive
relief issued pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940
Act'') \3\ applicable to a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 12, 2021.\4\ The Commission has received no comments on the
proposed rule change. The Commission is approving the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 80a.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92595 (August 6,
2021), 86 FR 44449.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E, which
permits the listing and trading of series of Active Proxy Portfolio
Shares. NYSE Arca 8.601-E currently requires that Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares be issued and redeemed in a specified minimum number
of shares, or multiples thereof, in return for the Proxy Portfolio \5\
and/or cash.\6\ The Exchange proposes to amend the definition of
``Active Proxy Portfolio Share'' in Rule 8.601-E(c)(1) to permit
creations and redemptions of shares in return for a Custom Basket in
addition to the Proxy Portfolio, to the extent permitted by a fund's
exemptive relief.\7\ Further, the Exchange proposes to define the term
``Custom Basket'' as a portfolio of securities that is different from
the Proxy Portfolio and is otherwise consistent with the exemptive
relief issued pursuant to the 1940 Act applicable to a series of Active
Proxy Portfolio Shares.\8\ The Exchange also proposes to amend the
definition of ``Reporting Authority'' in NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(4)
to include Custom Baskets among the types of information for which the
Reporting Authority designated for a particular series of Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares will be the official source for calculating and
reporting such information.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Proxy Portfolio'' means a specified portfolio of
securities, other financial instruments and/or cash designed to
track closely the daily performance of the Actual Portfolio of a
series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares as provided in the exemptive
relief pursuant to the 1940 Act applicable to such series. See NYSE
Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(3). The term ``Actual Portfolio'' means the
identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by
the Investment Company that shall form the basis for the Investment
Company's calculation of net asset value (``NAV'') at the end of the
business day. See NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(2).
    \6\ See NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(1) (defining the term ``Active
Proxy Portfolio Share'').
    \7\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(1) (defining ``Active
Proxy Portfolio Share'' as a security that (a) is issued by an
investment company registered under the 1940 Act (``Investment
Company'') organized as an open-end management investment company
that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment
Company's investment adviser consistent with the Investment
Company's investment objectives and policies; (b) is issued in a
specified minimum number of shares, or multiples thereof, in return
for a deposit by the purchaser of the Proxy Portfolio or Custom
Basket, as applicable, and/or cash with a value equal to the next
determined NAV; (c) when aggregated in the same specified minimum
number of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, or multiples thereof, may
be redeemed at a holder's request in return for the Proxy Portfolio
or Custom Basket, as applicable, and/or cash to the holder by the
issuer with a value equal to the next determined NAV; and (d) the
portfolio holdings for which are disclosed within at least 60 days
following the end of every fiscal quarter).
    \8\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(4). The Exchange
proposes to renumber the remainder of NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c). See
proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(5) and (6).
    \9\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(5) (defining
``Reporting Authority'' in respect of a particular series of Active
Proxy Portfolio Shares as the Exchange, an institution, or a
reporting service designated by the Exchange or by the exchange that
lists a particular series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares (if the
Exchange is trading such series pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges) as the official source for calculating and reporting
information relating to such series, including, but not limited to,
NAV, the Actual Portfolio, Proxy Portfolio, Custom Basket, or other
information relating to the issuance, redemption or trading of
Active Proxy Portfolio Shares).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d) to
incorporate specific initial and continued listing criteria relating to
Custom Baskets. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a new
initial listing requirement to stipulate that the Exchange shall obtain
a representation from the issuer of each series of Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares that the issuer and any person acting on behalf of the
series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares will comply with Regulation
Fair Disclosure under the Exchange Act

(``Regulation FD''),\10\ including with respect to any Custom
Basket.\11\ The Exchange also proposes to add a new continued listing
requirement that, with respect to each Custom Basket utilized by a
series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, each business day, before the
opening of trading in the Core Trading Session,\12\ the Investment
Company shall make publicly available on its website the composition of
any Custom Basket transacted on the previous business day, except a
Custom Basket that differs from the applicable Proxy Portfolio only
with respect to cash.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 243.100.
    \11\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(1)(B)(iii). NYSE
Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(1)(B) currently provides that the Exchange
shall obtain a representation from the issuer of each series of
Active Proxy Portfolio Shares that the NAV per share for the series
shall be calculated daily and that the NAV, the Proxy Portfolio, and
the Actual Portfolio shall be made publicly available to all market
participants at the same time. The Exchange proposes to renumber the
current requirements as NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii).
    \12\ The ``Core Trading Session'' begins for each security at
9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and ends at the conclusion of core trading
hours or the core closing auction, whichever comes later. See NYSE
Arca Rule 7.34-E(a)(2).
    \13\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(2)(B)(ii). The
Exchange also proposes to amend the title of NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-
E(d)(2)(B) to ``Proxy Portfolio and Custom Basket.'' See proposed
NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentaries .04 and .05 of
NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E, which contain requirements that specified
parties must erect and maintain ``fire walls'' with respect to access
to information concerning the Actual Portfolio and Proxy Portfolio and
enact procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and
dissemination of material non-public information regarding the Actual
Portfolio and Proxy Portfolio. The Exchange proposes to amend these
rules so that the requirements set forth therein would also cover
information concerning Custom Baskets. As proposed to be amended,
Commentary .04 would require that, if the investment adviser to the
Investment Company issuing Active Proxy Portfolio Shares is registered
as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such
investment adviser will erect and maintain a ``fire wall'' between the
investment adviser and personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer
affiliate, as applicable, with respect to access to information
concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company's
Actual Portfolio, Proxy Portfolio, and/or Custom Basket, as applicable.
In addition, any person related to the investment adviser or Investment
Company who makes decisions pertaining to the Investment Company's
Actual Portfolio, Proxy Portfolio, and/or Custom Basket, as applicable,
or has access to non-public information regarding the Investment
Company's Actual Portfolio, the Proxy Portfolio, and/or the Custom
Basket, as applicable, or changes thereto, must be subject to
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material non-public information regarding the Actual Portfolio, the
Proxy Portfolio, and/or the Custom Basket, as applicable, or changes
thereto. As proposed to be amended, Commentary .05 would require that
any person or entity, including a custodian, Reporting Authority,
distributor, or administrator, who has access to non-public information
regarding the Investment Company's Actual Portfolio, the Proxy
Portfolio, or the Custom Basket, as applicable, or changes thereto,
must be subject to procedures reasonably designed to prevent the use
and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the
applicable Actual Portfolio, the Proxy Portfolio, or the Custom Basket,
as applicable, or changes thereto. Moreover, if any such person or
entity is registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-
dealer, such person or entity will erect and maintain a ``fire wall''
between the person or entity and the broker-dealer with respect to
access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such
Investment Company's Actual Portfolio, Proxy Portfolio, or Custom
Basket, as applicable.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange Act and rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\14\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\15\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously approved NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E to permit
the listing and trading of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares.\16\ As
discussed above, under the current rule, a series of Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares must create or redeem shares in return for the Proxy
Portfolio and/or cash. The Exchange is now proposing to amend NYSE Arca
Rule 8.601-E to allow a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares to
create or redeem shares in return for a Custom Basket, which is a
portfolio of securities that is different from the Proxy Portfolio, to
the extent consistent with an issuer's exemptive relief under the 1940
Act.\17\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the
proposed amendments to NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E to provide for the use of
Custom Baskets for Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, to the extent
permitted by an issuer's exemptive relief under the 1940 Act, are
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89185 (June 29,
2020), 85 FR 40328 (July 6, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-95) (approving
proposal to adopt Rule 8.601-E to permit the listing and trading of
Active Proxy Portfolio Shares and to list and trade shares of the
Natixis U.S. Equities Opportunities ETF) (``2020 Order''). The
Exchange must file a separate proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for each series of Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares. See NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E, Commentary .01.
    \17\ The Commission has granted exemptive relief under the 1940
Act to certain series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares to permit the
creation or redemption of shares using a Custom Basket that includes
instruments that are not included, or included with different
weightings, in the fund's Proxy Portfolio. See, e.g., Natixis
Advisors, L.P., et al., Investment Company Act Release No. 34192
(February 9, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes to NYSE Arca Rule
8.601-E, Commentaries .04 and .05, are consistent with the Exchange Act
and are reasonably designed to help prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices. The Commission notes that, because Active Proxy
Portfolio Shares do not publicly disclose on a daily basis information
about the holdings of the Actual Portfolio, it is vital that key
information relating to Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, including
information relating to Custom Baskets, be kept confidential prior to
its public disclosure and not be subject to misuse.\18\ Accordingly,
the Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal to amend NYSE Arca
Rule 8.601-E, Commentaries .04 and .05,\19\ to apply the current ``fire
wall'' and other requirements contained therein to those that have
access to information concerning, or make decisions pertaining to, the
composition of and/or changes to the Custom Baskets, in

addition to the existing requirements relating to the Actual Portfolio
and the Proxy Portfolio, is designed to prevent fraud and manipulation
with respect to Active Proxy Portfolio Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 2020 Order, supra note 16, 85 FR at 40339.
    \19\ See supra Section II, describing proposed NYSE Arca Rule
8.601, Commentaries .04 and .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed amendments to the
initial and continued listing requirements for Active Proxy Portfolio
Shares are adequate to ensure transparency of information relating to
Custom Baskets utilized by a fund and to ensure that such information
is available to the rest of the market participants at the same time.
Specifically, prior to the opening of trading on each business day, the
Investment Company will make publicly available on its website the
composition of any Custom Basket transacted on the previous business
day, except a Custom Basket that differs from the applicable Proxy
Portfolio only with respect to cash.\20\ In addition, prior to the
initial listing of the Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, the Exchange will
be required to obtain a representation from the issuer of each series
of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares that the issuer and any person acting
on behalf of the series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares will comply
with Regulation FD, including with respect to any Custom Basket.\21\
These measures help to mitigate concerns that certain information
regarding the funds will be available only to select market
participants and thereby helps to prevent fraud and manipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(2)(B)(ii).
    \21\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(d)(1)(B)(iii). The
Commission notes that a fund's use of, or conversations with
authorized participants about, Creation Baskets that would result in
selective disclosure of non-public information would effectively be
limited by the funds' obligation to comply with Regulation Fair
Disclosure. See, e.g., Natixis ETF Trust II, et al., Investment
Company Act Release No. 34171 (January 12, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, as set forth in the definition of
``Custom Basket,'' a series of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares may only
utilize Custom Baskets to the extent consistent with the exemptive
relief issued pursuant to the 1940 Act applicable to such series.\22\
The Commission further notes that all series of Active Proxy Portfolio
Shares will continue to be subject to the existing rules and procedures
that govern the listing and trading of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares
and the trading of equity securities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \23\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2021-64),
be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21209 Filed 9-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 205)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62945-62948]
[DOCID:fr22oc08-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0736; FRL-8732-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
The Metropolitan Washington Nonattainment Area; Determination of
Attainment of the Fine Particle Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997 fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed determination
is based upon quality assured, quality controlled, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that show that the area has monitored
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS since the 2004-2006
monitoring period, and continues to monitor attainment of the standard
based on 2005-2007 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality
assured monitoring data for 2008 that are available in the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database, but not yet certified, show this area
continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. If this proposed
determination is made final, the requirements for this area to submit
an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment
of the standard shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to
attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 21,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0736 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0736, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such

deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0736. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-
MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
that show the area has monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS since the 2004-2006 monitoring period, and
monitoring data that continue to show attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2005-2007 data. In addition,
quality controlled and quality assured monitoring data for 2008 that
are available in the EPA AQS database, but not yet certified, show this
area continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. What Is the Effect of This Action?

    If this determination is made final, under the provisions of EPA's
PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the
requirements for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, the proposed determination would: (1)
For the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area, suspend
the requirements to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including reasonably
available control technologies (RACT)), a reasonable further progress
plan (RFP), contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related
to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue until
such time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that the area has
violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate from, and not
influence or otherwise affect, any future designation determination or
requirements for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA area based on
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect regardless of
whether EPA designates this area as a nonattainment area for purposes
of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below,
any such final determination would not be equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment based on the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the
area has violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the
suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR
51.1004(c), would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have
to address the pertinent requirements.
    The determination that EPA proposes with this Federal Register
notice, that the air quality data shows attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, is not equivalent to the redesignation of the
area to attainment. This proposed action, if finalized, would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under section 107(d)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), because we would not yet have an approved
maintenance plan for the area as required under section 175A of the
CAA, nor a determination that the area has met the other requirements
for redesignation. The designation status of the area would remain
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as
EPA determines that it meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to
attainment.
    This proposed action, if finalized, is limited to a determination
that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 area has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852) and are set forth
at 40 CFR 50.7. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective
on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144) are set forth at 40 CFR 50.13. EPA
is currently in the process of making designation determinations, as
required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA has not made any designation determination for the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA area based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
This proposed determination, and any final determination, will have no
effect on, and is not related to, any future designation determination
that EPA may make based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for the
Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA area. Conversely, any future
designation determination of the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA
area, based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, will not have

any effect on the determination proposed by this notice.
    If this proposed determination is made final and the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA area continues to demonstrate attainment with the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further
progress plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS would remain
suspended, regardless of whether EPA designates this area as a
nonattainment area for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Once the area is designated for the 2006 NAAQS, it will have to meet
all applicable requirements for that designation.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established a health-based
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m3) based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a twenty-four hour standard of 65
[mu]g/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. EPA established the standards based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate
matter. The process for designating areas following promulgation of a
new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. EPA
and State air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999, and developed all air quality
monitors by January 2001. On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA published
its air quality designations and classifications for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from
those monitors for calendar years 2001-2003. These designations became
effective on April 5, 2005. The Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA
(Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince George's, Alexandria,
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Falls Church, Manassas,
Manassas Park, Fairfax City, and the District of Columbia) area was
designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40
CFR part 81).

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for
PM2.5, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR
part 50 and recorded in the EPA AQS database for the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment area from 2004
through the present time. On the basis of that review, EPA has
concluded that this area attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS since
the 2004-2006 monitoring period, and continues to monitor attainment of
the NAAQS based on 2005-2007 data. In addition, quality controlled and
quality assured monitoring data for 2008 that are available in the EPA
AQS database, but not yet certified, show this area continues to attain
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 50, Sec.  50.7:
    (1) The annual primary and secondary PM2.5 standards are
met when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to
15.0 [mu]g/m3.
    (2) The 24-hour primary and secondary PM2.5 standards
are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined
in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to
65 [mu]g/m3.
    Table 1 shows the design values for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Metropolitan Washington, DC-MD-VA
nonattainment area monitors for the years 2004-2006 and 2005-2007.
Table 2 shows the design values for the 1997 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS for these same monitors and the same 3-year periods.

  Table 1--Design Values for Counties in the Metropolitan Washington Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS--
                                                 Annual Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1997 Annual
                  Location                      AQS site ID       attainment       2004-2006        2005-2007
                                                                   standard      Design values    Design values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia........................        110010041               15             14.4             14.0
District of Columbia........................        110010042               15             14.5             14.2
District of Columbia........................        110010043               15             14.0             13.5
Montgomery County, MD.......................        240313001               15             12.5             12.2
Prince George's, MD.........................        240338003               15             13.1             12.8
Arlington, VA...............................        510130020               15             14.2             14.0
Fairfax, VA.................................        510590030               15             13.4             13.0
Fairfax, VA.................................        510591005               15             13.6             13.5
Fairfax, VA.................................        510595001               15             13.9             13.7
Loudoun, VA.................................        511071005               15             13.6             13.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2--Design Values for Counties in the Metropolitan Washington Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS--24-
                                                  Hour Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               1997 Annual  24-
                  Location                      AQS site ID    hour attainment     2004-2006        2005-2007
                                                                   standard      Design values    Design values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia........................        110010041               65               37               35
District of Columbia........................        110010042               65               35               33
District of Columbia........................        110010043               65               34               34
Montgomery County, MD.......................        240313001               65               31               30
Prince George's, MD.........................        240338003               65               35               32
Arlington, VA...............................        510130020               65               34               32
Fairfax, VA.................................        510590030               65               35               34
Fairfax, VA.................................        510591005               65               34               32

Fairfax, VA.................................        510595001               65               34               33
Loudoun, VA.................................        511071005               65               35               33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's reviews of these data indicate that the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA nonattainment area has met and continues to meet
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Metropolitan Washington, DC-
MD-VA nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS has
attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and continues to attain the
standard based on data through 2008. As provided in 40 CFR 51.1004(c),
if EPA finalizes this determination, it would suspend the requirements
for this area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS so long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and
would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air
quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate
or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal applications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it proposes to determine that air quality in the affected
area is meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply
because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when
determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary
consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and
monitoring procedures to otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paper Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.)
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining
to the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia's determination of
attainment of the fine particle standard for the Metropolitan
Washington, DC-MD-VA area, involves a proposed determination of
attainment based on air quality data and will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any communities in the area, including minority and low-
income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 9, 2008.
W.T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E8-25160 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P