[Federal Register: December 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 73810-73811]
[DOCID:fr13de05-86]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52902; File No. SR-NASD-2005-128]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish
Rules Governing the Operation of the INET System

December 7, 2005.

I. Introduction

    On November 1, 2004, the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc. (``Nasdaq''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish rules governing the
operation of the INET ECN (``INET System'' or ``System'') and fees for
System services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 7, 2005.\3\ The Commission received no comments on
the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52723 (November 2,
2005), 70 FR 67513 (``INET Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    On April 22, 2005, Nasdaq entered into definitive agreements to
purchase INET ATS, Inc. (``INET''), a registered broker-dealer and
member of NASD,\4\ and operator of the INET System. Once acquired by
Nasdaq, the INET System would immediately become a ``facility'' of a
national securities association subject to the standards set forth in
Sections 15A \5\ and 19(b)(1) \6\ of the Act and would be required to
operate pursuant to formal system rules approved by the Commission.\7\
Accordingly, in order to ensure that such rules are in place at the
time of closing, Nasdaq proposes to establish rules governing the
operation of its INET System. Proposed NASD Rule 4950 Series addresses,
among other things, the INET System's order display and matching
function, access standards, order types, time-in-force designations,
out-bound order routing, order execution algorithm, clearly erroneous
trade procedures, and other system features and standards.\8\ Proposed
NASD Rule 701(w) sets forth the fees applicable to participants, which
currently include both NASD members and non-NASD members, in the INET
System for order execution services. According to Nasdaq, such fees
reflect those currently charged by INET to its participants. This fee
schedule would apply for a temporary period of time, not to exceed 60
days after INET becomes a facility of Nasdaq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the INET Notice, Nasdaq stated that, as a member of NASD,
INET is, and remains, subject to all NASD Rules applicable to its
activities as a broker-dealer. In addition, INET would continue to
participate in market surveillance and audit trail programs
conducted by Nasdaq, NASD, and other self-regulatory organizations.
INET would continue to act as a counter-party to all trades taking
place in its system, for anonymity as well as a clearance and
settlement purposes. INET would also continue to provide outbound
order routing services to other market centers for its subscribers.
See INET Notice at 67518.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)91).
    \7\ See INET Notice at 67518.
    \8\ See INET Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, Nasdaq would initially operate INET on a
platform separate from its Nasdaq Market Center and Brut platforms. For
a temporary period of time ending no later than September 30, 2006, the
INET System would continue to post its top-of-file quotes through the
facilities of the National Stock Exchange (``NSX''), as it does today,
and would remain subject to applicable rules and regulations of the
NSX.\9\ In the INET Notice, Nasdaq also stated that it anticipates
that, soon after the formal close of the Nasdaq/INET transaction, it
would merge the INET broker-dealer into Nasdaq's Brut broker-dealer and
that Brut, as a single broker-dealer, would operate both trading
platforms as separate systems with separate order processing and
execution. As such, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') would
continue to serve as the designated examining authority for financial
responsibility purposes for Nasdaq's broker-dealer, which would operate
both the Brut and INET trading platforms.\10\ Ultimately, Nasdaq
intends to integrate all of its systems into a single technology
platform and also combine all three of its system books into a single
integrated book. In the INET Notice, Nasdaq stated that it expects to
accomplish this process before the end of the third quarter of 2006.
    Nasdaq proposes that these rules would be implemented immediately
upon formal closing of the Nasdaq/INET transaction, and in no event
more than two weeks after Commission approval. In the INET Notice,
Nasdaq stated that it will provide to the Commission formal written
notice of the closing date of the transaction. Such closing date, which
must take place within two weeks of Commission approval, shall be the
start date for the calculation of any temporary time period referred to
in this filing. Nasdaq also stated that it would thereafter submit rule
filings to include such closing date in its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See INET Notice at 67518.
    \10\ See INET Notice at 67522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a self-regulatory organization
\11\ and, in particular, the requirements of Section 15A of the Act
\12\ and the rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
15A(b)(6) of the Act,\13\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the INET System would become a facility
of a national securities association subject to the standards set forth
in Sections 15A \14\ and 19(b)(1) \15\ of the Act when Nasdaq completes
its purchase of INET. As such, NASD and, pursuant to NASD's plan of
allocation and delegation of function to its subsidiaries, Nasdaq are
obligated to file rules governing the operation of the INET System with
the Commission. In addition, the Commission notes that, as

a broker-dealer, INET remains subject to the applicable NASD rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposed rule change articulates
Nasdaq's operation of INET and INET's integration with the Nasdaq
Market Center and Brut. The rules that are the subject of this filing
encompass a wide range of areas, including the INET System's order
display and matching function, access standards, order types, time-in-
force designations, out-bound order routing, order execution algorithm,
clearly erroneous trade procedures, other system features and
standards, and fees. The Commission believes that the proposed rules
are reasonably designed to provide order interaction and price
competition. Under the proposed rule change, INET will continue to
participate in market surveillance and audit trail programs conducted
by Nasdaq and NASD, and, for the temporary period during which it posts
its top-of-file quotes through the facilities of the NSX, would also
remain subject to all applicable rules and regulations of the NSX. In
addition, the Commission notes that many of the proposed trading rules
for the INET System are modeled on existing rules that apply to
Nasdaq's Brut facility and the Nasdaq Market Center.\16\ Accordingly,
the Commission believes that granting approval to substantially similar
rules for Nasdaq's INET facility is appropriate because such rules do
not raise any novel or significant regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51326 (March 7,
2005), 70 FR 12521 (March 14, 2005) (``Brut Approval Order''). On
September 7, 2004, Nasdaq acquired Brut LLC, a registered broker-
dealer and member of NASD, and operator of the Brut ECN (``Brut'').
Once purchased by Nasdaq, Brut became a facility of a national
securities association. Nasdaq initially operated Brut pursuant to a
Temporary Conditional Exemption under Section 36 of the Act, which
the Commission granted for a period of six months following Nasdaq's
acquisition of Brut. See Exchange Act Release No. 50311 (September
3, 2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10, 2004). On November 3, 2004,
NASD, through Nasdaq, filed with the Commission a proposed rule
change to establish rules governing the operation of its Brut
trading facility. The proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment
No. 1 thereto, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 31, 2005. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51078
(January 25, 2005), 70 FR 4902 (January 31, 2005) (SR-NASD-2004-173)
(``Brut Notice''). The Commission received no comments on the Brut
Notice, as amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto, and approved
the proposed rule change, as amended, on March 7, 2005. See Brut
Approval Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under this proposal, there is a
temporary transition period during which INET would continue to operate
in functionally the same manner in which it operates today; thus, the
immediate transition to INET's operation as a Nasdaq facility should be
seamless from a market structure perspective for market participants,
in general, and INET subscribers, in particular. The Commission also
emphasizes that INET, as a Nasdaq facility, will now be subject to
Section 19 of the Act \17\ and, to the extent that proposed rule
changes are required to effectuate the Nasdaq/INET integration as
described above, such proposed rule changes must be submitted to, and
reviewed by, the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission notes that several of Nasdaq's proposed
rules would apply for a temporary period, allowing INET to continue
certain of its current practices during a limited transition period
immediately following the closing of the Nasdaq/INET transaction. For
example, INET's proposed rules relating to the registration of all INET
system participants as members of NASD,\18\ clearly erroneous
transactions,\19\ limitation of liability,\20\ and system service
charges \21\ only apply for a period of time not to exceed 60 days
after INET becomes a facility of Nasdaq. Likewise, INET's display of
its best priced orders through the facilities of the NSX may continue
on a temporary basis until September 30, 2006.\22\ The Commission notes
that this proposal represents an interim step toward Nasdaq's ultimate
plan to unify INET, the Nasdaq Market Center, and Brut into a single
technology platform, which Nasdaq has committee to complete before the
end of the third quarter of 2006. Finally, the Commission expects that,
as Nasdaq has stated, soon after the formal close of the Nasdaq/INET
transaction, Nasdaq will merge the INET broker-dealer into Nasdaq's
Brut broker-dealer and that Brut as a single broker-dealer would
operate both ECNs as separate systems, with separate order processing
and execution, which would permit the NYSE to continue to serve as the
designated examining authority for financial responsibility purposes
for Nasdaq's wholly-owned broker-dealer. The Commission believes that
this arrangement should held to eliminate actual, or the appearance of
any, conflicts of interest between NASD and INET's broker-dealer
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed NASD Rule 4952.
    \19\ Proposed NASD Rule 4961.
    \20\ Proposed NASD Rule 4964.
    \21\ Proposed NASD Rule 7010(w).
    \22\ Proposed NASD Rule 4954(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\23\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NASD-2005-128) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23946 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6674-6675]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2017-F-4511]

Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Gamma-Linolenic Acid Safflower Oil

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, we, or Agency) is
amending the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and
drinking water of animals to provide for the safe use of gamma-
linolenic acid safflower oil (GLA safflower oil) as a source of omega-6
fatty acids in dry food for adult cats in the maintenance life stage.
This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by Arcadia
Biosciences, Inc.

DATES: This rule is effective February 28, 2019. See section V of this
document for further information on the filing of objections. Submit
either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on
the final rule by April 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as
follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be
considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before April
1, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will
accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 1,
2019. Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/
paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or
the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting objections. Objections submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your
objection does not include any confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information,
your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your objection, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an objection with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper objections submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-F-4511 for ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking
Water of Animals; Gamma-Linolenic Acid Safflower Oil.'' Received
objections, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an objection with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies in total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of objections. The second copy, which
will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out,
will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your objections and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper objections received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl. (HFV-228),
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In a document published in the Federal Register of September 14,
2017 (82 FR 43197), FDA announced that we had filed a food additive
petition (animal use) (FAP 2302) submitted by Arcadia Biosciences.
Inc., 202 Cousteau Pl., Suite 200, Davis, CA 95618. The petition
proposed that the regulations for food additives permitted in feed and
drinking water of animals be amended to provide for the safe use of GLA
safflower oil as a source of omega-6 fatty acids in dry food for adult
cats in the maintenance life stage.
    The petition for the safe use of GLA safflower oil as a source of
omega-6 fatty acids in dry food for adult cats in the maintenance life
stage (FAP 2302) indicated that the concentration of gamma-linolenic
acid was between 350 and 450 milligrams (mg) gamma-linolenic acid per
gram of the additive or the safflower oil blend. A previous petition
(FAP 2275) that provided for the safe use of GLA safflower oil as a
source of omega-6 fatty acids in dry food for adult dogs in the
maintenance life stage indicated that the concentration of gamma-
linolenic acid was between 400 and 450 mg gamma-linolenic acid per gram
of the additive or the safflower oil blend (82 FR 38595, August 15,
2017).
    In amending Sec.  573.492 (21 CFR 573.492) to allow for the safe
use of GLA safflower oil in dry food for adult cats, the current
allowable concentration

range for gamma-linolenic acid in the additive or the safflower oil
blend was amended to incorporate the broader range supported by FAP
2302. This does not adversely alter the technical effect from use of
the additive in adult maintenance dog food because provisions in the
August 15, 2017, rule (82 FR 38597), revised in paragraph (b)(2) of
this rule, specify that adjustments must be made for differing
concentrations of gamma-linolenic acid to meet other specified
parameters.

II. Conclusion

    FDA concludes that the data establish the safety and utility of GLA
safflower oil as a source of omega-6 fatty acids in dry food for adult
cats in the maintenance life stage and that the food additive
regulations should be amended as set forth in this document. This is
not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.

III. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with Sec.  571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition
and documents we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to
approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in Sec.  571.1(h), we
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure.

IV. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(r) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may
file with the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) either
electronic or written objections. Each objection shall be separately
numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity
the provision of the regulation to which objection is made and the
grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing
is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing
for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a
hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis
of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support
of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to
include such a description and analysis for any particular objection
shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573

    Animal feeds, Food additives.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
573 is amended as follows:

PART 573--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF
ANIMALS

0
1. The authority citation for part 573 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.

0
2. Revise Sec.  573.492 to read as follows:

Sec.  573.492  Gamma-linolenic acid safflower oil.

    The food additive, gamma-linolenic acid safflower oil, may be
safely used in animal food as a source of gamma-linolenic acid and
other omega-6 fatty acids in accordance with the following conditions:
    (a) The additive is the oil obtained from whole seeds and/or
partially dehulled seeds of a Carthamus tinctorius L. safflower
Centennial variety genetically engineered to express the delta-6-
desaturase gene from Saprolegnia diclina Humphrey. The 453 amino acid,
delta-6-desaturase enzyme converts the fatty acid linoleic acid to
gamma-linolenic acid (all-cis-6,9,12-octadecatrienoic acid) during seed
development.
    (1) The additive obtained from the seeds of the genetically
engineered safflower Centennial variety may be blended with oil
obtained from seeds of non-engineered oleic acid safflower varieties in
order to meet the specifications required for the additive or the blend
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (2) The additive or a safflower oil blend containing the additive
for use in animal food meets the following specifications:
    (i) Crude fat content of the additive or the safflower oil blend is
not less than 99.5 percent.
    (ii) Gamma-linolenic acid content is between 350 and 450 milligrams
(mg) gamma-linolenic acid per gram of the additive or the safflower oil
blend.
    (iii) Total content of stearidonic acid and cis, cis-6,9-
octadecadienoic acid in the additive or the safflower oil blend must
not exceed a total of 0.3 percent.
    (b) Addition of the additive, or the safflower oil blend, to
complete dry adult maintenance dog food must meet the following:
    (1) Addition of the additive or the safflower oil blend cannot
provide more than 36 mg gamma-linolenic acid per kilogram body weight
of the dog per day in more than 86 mg of the additive or the safflower
oil blend. This maximum addition rate of the additive, or the safflower
oil blend, is 0.3 percent of a complete dry adult maintenance dog food
containing 3,600 kilocalories of metabolizable energy per kilogram of
food as-fed.
    (2) Adjustments must be made for differing concentrations of gamma-
linolenic acid and for dog food formulas of different caloric density
and/or that are fed to specific weights, breeds, or dogs of different
activity levels to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    (c) Addition of the additive, or the safflower oil blend, to
complete dry adult maintenance cat food must meet the following:
    (1) Addition of the additive or the safflower oil blend cannot
provide more than 33 mg gamma-linolenic acid per kilogram body weight
of the cat per day in more than 79 mg of the additive or the safflower
oil blend. This maximum addition rate of the additive, or the safflower
oil blend, is 0.5 percent of a complete dry adult maintenance cat food
containing 4,000 kilocalories of metabolizable energy per kilogram of
food as-fed.
    (2) Adjustments must be made for differing concentrations of gamma-
linolenic acid and for cat food formulas of different caloric density
and/or that are fed to specific weights, breeds, or cats of different
activity levels to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    (d) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to other
information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the
label and labeling of the additive shall bear the following:
    (1) The name of the additive, gamma-linolenic acid safflower oil,
or GLA safflower oil;
    (2) A guarantee for the minimum content of gamma-linolenic acid;
and
    (3) Adequate directions for use such that the finished animal food
complies with the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

    Dated: February 22, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-03514 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23504-23508]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10069]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0700; FRL-9993-63-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Indiana's November 27, 2017
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze.
This proposed action is based on EPA's determination that a state's
implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program
continues to meet the criteria of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to
qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART). EPA is proposing several related actions. First, EPA
is proposing to approve the portion of Indiana's

November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze
requirements. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's limited approval/
limited disapproval of Indiana's regional haze SIP to a full approval
and to withdraw the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that
address the limited disapproval. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve
the visibility prong of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittals for the
2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and to convert EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an
approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0700 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as a national visibility
goal ``the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Section 169A(b)(2)(A)
of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain
such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards
the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and
1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA
provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and
further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent
rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA
demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART.\1\ See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that
remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible
electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Indiana, that contributed
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Indiana,
relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their
regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental
benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C.
Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs
to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of
CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have
superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed,'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following
that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Indiana's
regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the
requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Indiana submitted, and
EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA
finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP on June 11,
2012 (77 FR 34218), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
    In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR
trading

program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR Federal trading program
implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading
program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies
as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\ See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states
covered by CSAPR, including Indiana, have utilized the provision
through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6,
2012).
    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has
approved Minnesota's, Wisconsin's, and Alabama's SIPs relying on
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12,
2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and
82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as
to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
    The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions
budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX
budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed
implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase
2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014,
began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative
to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA
explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did
not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains ``better-than-BART;''
that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an
alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program.
    Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeks to correct the
deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its
regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
Specifically, Indiana requests that EPA approve the State's regional
haze SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy
SO2 and NOX BART requirements.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    The ``infrastructure SIP'' requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. The requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP
submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are required to
be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the
Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2).
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
``Prong 4'' Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections
169A and 169B). EPA issued guidance on infrastructure SIPs in a
September 13, 2013 memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The 2013
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impact the visibility program
requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA
interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may
satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A
fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering

with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze
RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portion of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012
PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
standards, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portion of
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an
approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided
below.
1. 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\). See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS to EPA no later than September 21, 2009. Indiana submitted
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on
October 20, 2009, June 25, 2012, July 12, 2012, and May 22, 2013. This
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those
submissions. The other portions of Indiana's PM2.5
infrastructure submissions have been previously addressed (78 FR 41311,
July 10, 2013; 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014; and 83 FR 64472, December
17, 2018).
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15,
2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14,
2015. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 10, 2016. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of
Indiana's December 10, 2016 PM2.5 infrastructure submission
have been previously addressed (83 FR 4595, February 1, 2018) or will
be addressed in a separate action.
2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA
no later than June 2, 2013. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 2013.
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that
submission. The other portions of Indiana's May 22, 2013 SO2
infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (80 FR 48733,
August 14, 2015) or will be addressed in a separate action.
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Indiana submitted
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on
January 15, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4
element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana's January 15,
2013, NO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a
previous EPA action (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015).
4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per
million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to
submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA
no later than March 12, 2011. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 12, 2011. On June 15, 2016, EPA
disapproved the intrastate transport provisions of Indiana's 2008 ozone
infrastructure submission, including the prong 4 element. See 81 FR
53309. This proposed action addresses the disapproval for prong 4 and
proposes to convert it to a full approval. The other portions of
Indiana's December 12, 2011 ozone infrastructure SIP submission have
been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 23713, April 29, 2015).

II. What is EPA's analysis of how Indiana addressed regional haze and
prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP requirements?

    Indiana submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012
annual PM2.5 (December 10, 2016); 2006 24-hour average
PM2.5 (October 20, 2009; June 25, 2012; July 12, 2012; and
May 22, 2013); 2010 NO2 (January 15, 2013); 2010
SO2 (May 22, 2013); and 2008 ozone (December 12, 2011) which
relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to
satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA had not previously fully
approved Indiana's regional haze SIP. As discussed earlier in this
action, the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original
regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which
also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Indiana
utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP
and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely
on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on
November 27, 2017, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
    As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ``better than
BART,'' given the changes to CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C.
Circuit's remand. Because the Agency has finalized the ``CSAPR remains
better-than-BART'' rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the regional
haze portion of the State's November 27, 2017 SIP revision and convert
EPA's previous action on Indiana's regional haze SIP from a limited
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA's
finds that this portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP revision
satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements for
EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4
requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also
proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Indiana's 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; and the
2010 SO2 submission. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's
disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Indiana's 2008 ozone
infrastructure submission to an approval.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the
portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change
from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze
requirements;

(2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Indiana's
January 14, 2011 and March 10, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full
approval; (3) withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited
disapproval; (4) approve the visibility prong of Indiana's
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5,
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert
EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of Indiana's infrastructure
SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval.
    All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the
infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemakings.

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-10069 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Page 1 of 1 2/ 25/ 2005 U. S. EPA BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS Particulate Matter and Ozone Subcommittee MEETING AGENDA March 3, 2005 12: 00 pm   3: 00 pm EST CONFERENCE CALL Participation by Teleconference Only The call may end earlier than indicated below. For information on joining the call, contact Lawrence Martin at 202.564.6497 12: 00 Introductions and explanation of BOSC Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair 12: 10 FACA rules and Ethics training Mr. Lawrence Martin, EPA 12: 20 Charge to the Subcommittee Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair Questions 12: 40 Explanation of how EPA manages their programs Dr. Bill Farland, EPA ( logic, strategy, LTGs APMs etc.) Mr. Lawrence Martin, EPA Questions Ms. Jenny Robbins, EPA Dr. Dan Costa, EPA 1: 40 Explanation of PM and ozone MYPs, current status, changes from 2003 and their merger Dr. Dan Costa, EPA Discussion 2: 40 Report organization and writing assignments Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair 2: 50 Public Comment Mr. Lawrence Martin, EPA


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2234-2237]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82476; File No. SR-BATSBZX-2017-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, To
List and Trade Shares of the Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Dividend
Aristocrats[supreg] Target Income Index ETF Under the ETF Series
Solutions Trust Under Rule 14.11(c)(3)

January 9, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On September 19, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade shares
(``Shares'') of the Cboe Vest S&P 500[supreg] Dividend
Aristocrats[supreg] Target Income Index ETF (``Fund'') under the ETF
Series Solutions Trust (``Trust''). The proposed

rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
October 11, 2017.\3\ On November 17,2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ On December 29, 2017, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. On January 2, 2018, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, which
replaced the original filing, as amended by Amendment No. 1, in its
entirety.\6\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed rule
change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81815 (October 4,
2017), 82 FR 47265.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82115, 82 FR 55891
(November 24, 2017). The Commission designated January 9, 2018, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Updated information
regarding the Fund's registration statement; (2) made
representations regarding the fire walls to be implemented by the
Fund's adviser and the provider of the underlying index; (3)
disclosed the investment objective of the Fund; (4) provided
additional information regarding the underlying index; (5)
supplemented its description of the Fund's permitted investments;
(6) described the availability of price information for the Shares
and the Fund's permitted investments; (7) made certain
representations regarding surveillance; (8) represented that the
Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed daily on the issuer's
website; (9) stated that the Exchange deems the Shares to be equity
securities; (10) disclosed the minimum number of Shares that will be
outstanding at the commencement of trading; (11) identified
circumstances in which trading in the Shares may and will be halted;
and (12) made other technical amendments. Amendment No. 2 is
available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-58/batsbzx201758-2869571-161745.pdf. Because Amendment No. 2 does not
materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise
unique or novel regulatory issues, Amendment No. 2 is not subject to
notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additional information regarding the Trust, the Fund, the
underlying index, and the Shares, including investment strategies,
risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings,
disclosure policies, calculation of the NAV, distributions, and
taxes, among other things, can be found in Amendment No. 2, supra
note 6, and the Registration Statement, infra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares pursuant to its
Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the listing and trading of Index Fund
Shares on the Exchange.\8\ The Shares do not qualify for generic
listing because the index underlying the Shares includes derivatives,
rather than consisting exclusively of ``U.S. Component Stocks'' (as
defined in BZX Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D)) or ``U.S. Component Stocks and
cash,'' as required by BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ According to the Exchange, the Trust filed with the
Commission a registration statement on Form N-1A under the
Securities Act of 1993 relating to the Fund (File Nos. 333-179562
and 811-22668) (``Registration Statement''). According to the
Exchange, the Commission has not yet issued an order granting
exemptive relief to the Trust under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) applicable to the activities of the Fund. The
Exchange represents that the Fund will not be listed on the Exchange
until such an order is issued and any conditions contained therein
are satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Funds' adviser, Cboe Vest Financial, LLC (the ``Adviser''), and
index provider, Chicago Board Options Exchange (``Cboe Options'' or the
``Index Provider''), are not registered as broker-dealers, but are
affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Index Provider has implemented and
will maintain a ``fire wall'' with respect to such broker-dealer and
its personnel regarding access to information concerning the
composition and/or changes to the Index (as defined below). In
addition, Index Provider personnel who make decisions regarding the
Index composition or methodology are subject to procedures designed to
prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information
regarding the Index, pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(B)(iii). The
Adviser has also implemented and will maintain a ``fire wall'' with
respect to such broker-dealer and its personnel regarding access to
information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio.
In addition, Adviser personnel who make decisions regarding a Fund's
portfolio are subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and
dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding a Fund's
portfolio. In the event that (a) the Adviser becomes registered as a
broker-dealer or newly affiliated with another broker-dealer; or (b)
any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer or becomes
affiliated with a broker-dealer; it will implement a fire wall with
respect to its relevant personnel or such broker-dealer affiliate, as
applicable, regarding access to information concerning the composition
and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures
designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public
information regarding such portfolio.

A. The Index

    The Fund will track the Cboe S&P 500[supreg] Dividend
Aristocrats[supreg] Target Income Index (``Index''). The Index is
composed of two parts: (1) An equal-weighted portfolio of the stocks
contained in the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index \9\ (``Aristocrat
Stocks'') that have options that trade on a national securities
exchange; and (2) a rolling series of short weekly or monthly call
options on each of the Aristocrat Stocks (``Covered Calls'').\10\ The
equity component of the Index is rebalanced (i.e., weights are reset to
equal-weighted) quarterly effective after the close of the last
business day of each January, April, July, and October and
reconstituted (i.e., Aristocrat Stocks are added and deleted according
to the Index rules) annually effective after the close of the last
business day of each January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the Exchange, there are currently 51 stocks in
the Index and at each annual reconstitution the minimum number of
constituent stocks is 40.
    \10\ All of the options contracts held by the Fund will trade on
markets that are a member of Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG'') or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the
Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Fund's Principal Investments

    The Fund would invest all, or substantially all, of its assets in
the component securities that make up the Index. Under Normal Market
Conditions,\11\ at least 80% of the Fund's total assets (exclusive of
any collateral held from securities lending) will be invested in the
component securities of the Index. The Fund will hold only: U.S.
exchange-listed equity securities; FLEX options listed on a U.S.
national securities exchange overlying other exchange-listed equity
securities or U.S equity indexes; standardized options listed on a U.S.
national securities exchange overlying exchange-listed equity
securities or U.S. equity indexes; cash; and cash equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Normal Market Conditions'' is defined in BZX Rule
14.11(i)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Fund's Non-Principal Investments

    The Fund would hold up to 20% of its assets in instruments that are
not included in the Index, including only the following: U.S. exchange-
listed ETFs that provide broad-based exposure to U.S. large cap stocks,
U.S. exchange-listed FLEX and/or U.S. exchange-listed standardized
options on such ETFs, U.S. exchange-listed FLEX and/or U.S. exchange-
listed standardized options on the S&P 500 Index, and cash and cash
equivalents.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes of this proposal, cash equivalents include
short-term instruments with maturities of less than three months,
including: (i) U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes,
and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are
either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S.
Government agencies or instrumentalities; (ii) certificates of
deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan
association; (iii) bankers acceptances, which are short-term credit
instruments used to finance commercial transactions; (iv) repurchase
agreements and reverse repurchase agreements; (v) bank time
deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and
loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of
interest; (vi) commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured
promissory notes; and (vii) money market funds.

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

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal to list and trade the Shares, as modified by Amendment No. 2,
is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\13\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposal to list and trade
the Shares on the Exchange is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii)
of the Exchange Act,\14\ which sets forth Congress's finding that it is
in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of investors
and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the
availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with
respect to quotations for, and transactions in, securities. According
to the Exchange, quotation and last-sale information for the Shares
will be available through the Consolidated Tape Association, and
information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading
volume for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section
of newspapers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also 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. The
Commission believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is
reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may
be necessary to price the Shares appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities,\16\ and
therefore trading in the Shares will be subject to the Exchange's
existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The Exchange
represents that the Shares and the Index will satisfy, on an initial
and continued listing basis, all of the generic listing standards other
than BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), and will satisfy all other applicable
requirements for Index Fund Shares under BZX Rule 14.11(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 6, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Index value will be widely disseminated by one or more major
market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the Exchange's
Regular Trading Hours.\17\ Further, an Intraday Indicative Value for
the Shares, updated at least every 15 seconds, will be disseminated
during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours.\18\ The portfolio of
instruments held by the Fund will be disclosed daily on the Fund's
website.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(B)(ii)(a). The Exchange's
``Regular Trading Hours'' are between 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. See BZX Rule 1.5(w).
    \18\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(C).
    \19\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(1)(B)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quotation and last sale information for standardized options will
be available via the Options Price Reporting Authority. RFQ information
for FLEX Options will be available directly from the listing exchange.
Last-sale information for FLEX Options will be available via the
Options Price Reporting Authority. The intra-day, closing and
settlement prices of exchange-traded options (both standardized and
FLEX Options) will be readily available from the options exchanges,
automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or
online information services such as Bloomberg or Reuters. Price
information on Treasury bills and other cash equivalents is available
from major broker-dealer firms or market data vendors, as well as from
automated quotation systems, published or other public sources, or
online information services.
    The Commission also believes that the proposal is designed to
prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be
assured. The Exchange states that trading in the Shares may be halted
for market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange,
make trading inadvisable. Similarly, trading in the Shares will be
halted where there is an interruption to the Intraday Indicative Value
being disseminated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading
Hours and such interruption persists past the trading day in which it
occurred.\20\ The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer
of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and made
available to all market participants at the same time.\21\ If the
Exchange becomes aware that the NAV for the Shares is not being
disseminated to all market participants at the same time or the daily
public website disclosure of portfolio holdings does not occur, the
Exchange shall halt trading in the Shares.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 6, at 11.
    \21\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(9)(A)(ii).
    \22\ See BZX Rule 14.11(c)(1)(b)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To support this proposal, the Exchange has made the following
representations:
    (1) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions
in the Shares during all trading sessions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Amendment No. 2, supra note 6, at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will
communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-
traded options contracts with other markets and other entities that are
members of the ISG and may obtain trading information regarding trading
in the Shares and exchange-traded options contracts from such markets
and other entities. The Exchange is also able to access, as needed,
trade information for certain fixed income instruments reported to
FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine. The Exchange may obtain
information regarding trading in the Shares and exchange-traded options
contracts from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or
with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance
sharing agreement. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy
prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its
employees.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) All of the instruments held by the Fund, other than cash
equivalents, will be U.S. exchange-listed and will trade on markets
that are a member of the ISG or affiliated with a member of ISG or with
which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id. at 10, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in
compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the
commencement of trading on the Exchange.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (6) The Fund will not be listed on the Exchange until the
Commission has issued an order granting exemptive relief to the Trust
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 applicable to the activities
of the Fund and any conditions contained therein are satisfied.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See id. at 4 n.3.

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

    All statements and representations made in this filing regarding
the index composition, the description of the portfolio or reference
assets, limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets,
dissemination and availability of index, reference asset, and intraday
indicative values, and the applicability of Exchange rules specified in
this filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for the
Fund. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise
the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or the Shares to comply with
the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations
under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for
compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund or the
Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements,
the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under BZX Rule 14.12.
This approval order is based on all of the Exchange's representations,
including those set forth above and in Amendment No. 2.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \29\
and Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act \30\ and the rules
and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BATSBZX-2017-58),
as modified by Amendment No. 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00533 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		April 7, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	EPA Region 1

SUBJECT:	April 6, 2015, Overview of Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants for Harvard Law School's American Constitution Society --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      On April 6, 2015, Regional Administrator Curt Spalding spoke to a group of students from Harvard Law School's American Constitution Society about the proposed Clean Power Plan.         ATTENDEES EPA:  Curt Spalding Emily Bender Shutsu Wong

Harvard Law School:  Paul Suitter

Approximately 15 people attended this conference.  Attendance was not taken by EPA