[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34736-34737]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-447, OMB Control No. 3235-0504]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 19b-4(e)
and Form 19b-4(e)

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Rule 19b-4(e) (17
CFR 240.19b-4(e)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.) (the ``Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 19b-4(e) permits a self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') to
list and trade a new derivative securities product without submitting a
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
78s(b)), so long as such product meets the criteria of Rule 19b-4(e)
under the Act. However, in order for the Commission to maintain an
accurate record of all new derivative securities products traded on the
SROs, Rule 19b-4(e) requires an SRO to file a summary form, Form 19b-
4(e), to notify the Commission when the SRO begins trading a new
derivative securities product that is not required to be submitted as a
proposed rule change to the Commission. Form 19b-4(e) should be
submitted within five business days after an SRO begins trading a new
derivative securities product that is not required to be submitted as a
proposed rule change. In addition, Rule 19b-4(e) requires an SRO to
maintain, on-site, a copy of Form 19b-4(e) for a prescribed period of
time.
    This collection of information is designed to allow the Commission
to maintain an accurate record of all new derivative securities
products traded on the SROs that are not deemed to be proposed rule
changes and to determine whether an SRO has properly availed itself of
the permission granted by Rule 19b-4(e). The Commission reviews SRO
compliance with Rule 19b-4(e) through its routine inspections of the
SROs.
    The respondents to the collection of information are SROs (as
defined by the Act), all of which are national securities

exchanges. As of April 8, 2022 there were 24 entities registered as
national securities exchanges with the Commission. The Commission
receives an average total of 2,331 responses per year, which
corresponds to an estimated annual hour burden of approximately 2,331
hours (2,331 responses x 1 hour per response). At an average hourly
cost of $72, the aggregate related internal cost of compliance for Rule
19b-4(e) is approximately $167,832 per year (2,331 burden hours
multiplied by $72/hour).
    Compliance with Rule 19b-4(e) is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 19b-4(e) shall not be kept confidential; the
information collected is public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by August 8, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: June 1, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12158 Filed 6-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13946-13948]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91272; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-012]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 11.11 (Routing to Away Trading Centers), as Well as Its Fee
Schedule, To Delete References to the INET and RDOX Routing Options

March 5, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 1, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as
a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
amend Rule 11.11 (Routing to Away Trading Centers), as well as its Fee
Schedule, to delete references to the INET and RDOX routing options.
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (4) and (6) under
Exchange Rule 11.11(g) and 11.11(a) to delete all references to the
INET and RDOX routing options. The Exchange also proposes to delete all
references to the INET routing option from the EDGX Fee Schedule, as
provided in fee codes 2 and L. The Exchange intends to implement the
proposed rule changes on March 1, 2021.
    Exchange Rule 11.11(g) provides for various routing options
available on the Exchange. Specifically, Rule 11.11(g)(4) provides for
the INET routing option, under which an order checks the System \5\ for
available shares and then is sent to Nasdaq. If shares remain
unexecuted after routing, they are posted on the Nasdaq book, unless
otherwise instructed by the User.\6\ Similarly, Exchange Rule
11.11(g)(6) provides for the RDOX routing option, under which an order
checks the System for available shares and then is sent to the NYSE and
can be re-routed by the NYSE. If shares remain unexecuted after
routing, they are posted on the NYSE book, unless otherwise instructed
by the User.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``System'' shall mean the electronic communications
and trading facility designated by the Board through which
securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking, execution
and, when applicable, routing away. See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
    \6\ The term ``User'' shall mean any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3. See Exchange Rule 1.5(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has determined because few Users select the INET or
RDOX routing options, the current demand does not warrant the
infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expenses required to support the
product. Therefore, the Exchange now

proposes to delete INET and RDOX as a routing option as provided by
Rule 11.11(g)(4) and (6), respectively.
    Given the proposed changes described above, the Exchange also
proposes to amend Rules 11.11(a) to eliminate any reference to the INET
and RDOX routing strategies. Specifically, Rule 11.11(a) provides that
unless a User selects the Post to Away, RDOT, RDOX, INET, or ROOC
routing option, an order that includes a Short Sale instruction when a
Short Sale Circuit Breaker pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO is in
effect is not eligible for routing by the Exchange. Based on the
proposal to eliminate INET and RDOX from Exchange Rules, the Exchange
is proposing to eliminating [sic] all such references to INET and RDOX
in Rules 11.11(a).
    As the Exchange is proposing to eliminate the INET routing option
from the EDGX Rulebook, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate any
such reference to those routing options [sic] on the EDGX Fee Schedule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate Fee Codes 2 \7\ and
L.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Orders that yield fee code 2 are routed to Nasdaq using the
INET routing strategy (Tape B), and are charged a fee of $0.00300.
    \8\ Orders that yield fee code L are routed to Nasdaq using the
INET routing strategy (Tape A or C), and are charged a fee of
$0.00300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to
remove references to the RDOX and INET routing options will remove
impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market, thereby
protecting investors and the public interest. As stated, the Exchange
has noted that few Users elect the RDOX and INET routing options and
has determined that the current demand does not warrant the
infrastructure and ongoing maintenance expense required to support
these products. Therefore, the Exchange is discontinuing these routing
options. The Exchange notes that routing through the Exchange is
voluntary and alternative routing options offered by the Exchange as
well as other methods remain available to Users that wish to route to
other trading centers. In addition, neither the RDOX nor the INET
routing options are core product offerings by the Exchange, nor is the
Exchange required by the Act to offer such products. By removing
references to routing options that will no longer be offered by the
Exchange, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to the mechanism of a free and open market and protect
investors by providing investors with rules that accurately reflect
routing options currently available on the Exchange. The Exchange does
not believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers because the RDOX and INET routing
options will no longer be available to all Users.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change to
remove RDOX and INET is not designed to address any competitive issues
but rather to delete the RDOX and INET routing options that are rarely
used on the Exchange. As stated, the Exchange has noted that few Users
elect the RDOX or INET routing options and has determined that the
current demand does not warrant the infrastructure and ongoing
maintenance expense required to support these products. Therefore, the
Exchange is discontinuing these routing options. The Exchange notes
that routing through the Exchange is voluntary and alternative routing
options offered by the Exchange as well as other methods remain
available to Users that wish to route to other trading centers. In
addition, neither the RDOX nor the INET routing options are core
product offerings by the Exchange, nor is the Exchange required by the
Act to offer such products.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \15\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \16\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
states that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would immediately
eliminate rules and references that account for services the Exchange
planned to discontinue on March 1, 2021, thereby avoiding potential
investor confusion during the operative delay period. Based on the
foregoing, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and

designates the proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-012 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-012. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-012 and should be
submitted on or before April 1, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05032 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46285-46287]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15261]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97893; File No. SR-MEMX-2023-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule To Waive Membership Fees for New Members
Temporarily

July 13, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 30, 2023, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to waive the membership fees (``Membership Fees'')
for approximately the next six months for all new Members of the
Exchange. The Exchange will implement the membership fee waiver (the
``Membership Fee Waiver'') for the period of time commencing
immediately and ending on December 31, 2023. The text of the proposed
rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to waive
the Membership Fees for all new Members of the Exchange who join the
Exchange through December 31, 2023. The Exchange will implement the
Membership Fee Waiver (as defined above) until December 31, 2023. The
Exchange notes that the proposed change does not amend any existing fee
or rebate for equities transactions, market data or connectivity fees.
The sole change proposed herein is to waive membership fees for new
Members of the Exchange, as described below.
    MEMX currently charges $200 per month to maintain active
membership. In preparation for the launch of the Exchange's options
market (``MEMX Options''),\4\ the Exchange wishes to

encourage additional participants to join the Exchange by waiving the
Exchange's membership fee for such new participants. The Exchange
proposes to apply the Membership Fee Waiver to all new Members ending
on December 31, 2023. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add a
description under ``Membership'' in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, noting
that Membership Fees will be waived for new Members of the Exchange
until January 1, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On August 8, 2022, the Commission approved SR-MEMX-2022-10,
which proposed rules for the trading of options on the Exchange. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95445 (August 9, 2022) [sic], 87
FR 49884 (August 12, 2022) (SR-MEMX-2022-010). The Exchange plans to
launch MEMX Options in September of 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange notes that the proposed change is intended
primarily to encourage new participants to join the Exchange in order
to participate on the MEMX Options market and the Exchange believes the
participants that will benefit from this waiver are firms that will do
so, the Exchange is intentionally proposing the waiver to apply broadly
to all new participants on the Exchange, including firms that would
trade only on the Exchange's market for equity securities or on both
the Exchange's market for equity securities and MEMX Options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\
in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to waive the Membership Fee
for new Members of the Exchange, primarily to provide an incentive for
options trading firms to apply for Exchange membership in advance of
the launch of MEMX Options. The options markets are quote-driven
markets and are dependent on liquidity providers for liquidity and
price discovery. The proposal will be of particular importance in
encouraging liquidity providers to become members of the Exchange,
which may result in more trading opportunities, enhanced competition,
and improved overall market quality on the Exchange. Although the
proposed change is intended primarily to encourage new participants to
join the Exchange in order to participate on the MEMX Options market
and the Exchange believes the participants that will benefit from this
waiver are firms that will do so, the Exchange also believes that it is
reasonable to adopt the waiver in a manner that applies broadly to all
new participants on the Exchange, including firms that would trade only
on the Exchange's market for equity securities or on both the
Exchange's market for equity securities and MEMX Options.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed Membership Fee
Waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it will
apply uniformly to all new Members of the Exchange. Further, the
Exchange believes that the waiver is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to current Members of the Exchange because the
majority of the Exchange's current Members joined at a time when the
Exchange did not impose membership fees (also to incentivize such
participants to join), and thus have already received this benefit.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as
discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
encourage market participants who have not already done so to join the
Exchange. As a result, if such participants do join the Exchange and
route their orders to the Exchange or support other Members that route
orders (i.e., clearing firms) the Exchange believes the proposal would
enhance its competitiveness as a market. Encouraging additional
participants to join the Exchange will enable a greater number of
participants to be onboard when MEMX Options launches. Attracting a
greater number of participants will foster greater competition on the
Exchange, particularly in the case of MEMX Options which is a quote-
driven market. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the
proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of
fostering competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient
pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and
small.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
encourage new participants to apply for Exchange membership, thereby
enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange, as well as
enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which
the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market
participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes would
impose any burden on intramarket competition because such changes will
incentivize new participants to join the Exchange and the majority of
the Exchange's current members joined at a time when the Exchange did
not impose membership fees (also to incentivize such participants to
join), and thus have already received this benefit. The options markets
are quote-driven markets and are dependent on liquidity providers for
liquidity and price discovery. The proposal will be of particular
importance in encouraging liquidity providers to become members of the
Exchange, which may result in more trading opportunities, enhanced
competition, and improved overall market quality on the Exchange. For
the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would
not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As described above, the proposed Membership Fee Waiver will
incentive market participants to join the Exchange during the
Membership Fee Waiver period. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the
proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition
by enabling it to better compete with other options exchanges at the
time MEMX Options launches. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange
has intentionally proposed to adopt the waiver broadly so that it is
also applicable to new Members that will participate on the Exchange's
market for equity securities or that will participate on such market as
well as MEMX Options, and thus, the proposal may also better enable the
Exchange to compete with other equities exchanges.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \9\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-MEMX-2023-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2023-13 and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15261 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


   1. Standard Interpretations

   2. The requirement for single or multiple SDSs
   # --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Number:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.1200(g)(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.1200(g)(2)(x)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1910.1200 App D
OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
December 23, 2014
Mr. Robb Boros
Patterson Logistics Services, Inc.
1905 Lakewood Drive
Boone, Iowa 50036
Dear Mr. Boros:
Thank you for your January 17, 2014, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Directorate of Enforcement Programs. Your letter requested clarification on safety data sheets (SDSs) under the revised Hazard Communication standard (HCS 2012), 29 CFR 1910.1200. This letter constitutes OSHA¿s interpretation only of the requirements herein, and may not be applicable to any questions not delineated within your original correspondence. Your paraphrased questions and our responses are below.
Question 1: If the end user company adds water to a concentrate solution prior to use, must the SDS for that product reflect the concentrate form of the chemical? If a company sells both concentrate and ready-to-use products, would each product require a unique SDS or would a single SDS suffice?
Response: Manufacturers or importers are required to obtain or develop a safety data sheet for each hazardous chemical that they produce. See 1910.1200(g)(1). The SDS must reflect the concentrate form of the chemical since the end user is the one that adds the water. Additionally, if the manufacturer should reasonably know that a chemical is going to be used in a particular way (e.g., if the chemical is going to be mixed with water by the downstream user), and if that use creates a new hazard, the manufacturer must disclose the hazards of reaction product in Section 10(c) of the SDS. See 1910.1200(g)(2)(x).
If the concentrate chemical contains different ingredients than the ready-to-use chemical, unique SDSs must be developed for each chemical. Single SDSs are permitted only when mixtures have similar hazards and contents (i.e. the chemical ingredients are essentially the same, but the specific composition varies from mixture to mixture or batch to batch). See 1910.1200, Appendix D.
Question 2: If several hazardous chemicals are packaged in such a manner where each is in a separate inner container (e.g. epoxy syringe) or in a distinct compartment of a single container (e.g. amalgam capsule containing mercury and alloy powder), is an SDS required for each different hazardous chemical?
Response: Yes, a separate SDS is required for each distinct hazardous chemical. Paragraph 1910.1200(g)(1) requires chemical manufacturers or importers to develop an SDS for each hazardous chemical they produce or import. Therefore, an SDS is required for each of the chemicals in the epoxy syringe and each of the chemicals in the amalgam capsule. When a manufacturer or importer intends a chemical to be used with another chemical (e.g., that two chemicals in an epoxy syringe or an amalgam capsule will be mixed together), and that use creates a new hazard, the manufacturer must also disclose the hazards of reaction products in Section 10(c) (Stability and reactivity) of the SDS. OSHA would require information on the safe handling and use of the reaction product in other sections of the SDS, if different than the individual components, such as 4 (First-aid measures), 5 (fire-fighting measures), 6 (accidental release measures), 7 (handling and storage), and 8 (exposure controls/personal protection). See 1910.1200(g)(2). In the examples you provided, if there are new hazards created by the reaction of the chemicals in a syringe or amalgam capsule, this information must be included on the SDSs for each hazardous chemical.
As you may be aware, the State of Iowa is one of 25 states plus Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands that operates its own occupational safety and health program under a plan approved and monitored by federal OSHA. Employers in the State of Iowa must comply with state occupational safety and health requirements. As a condition of plan approval, state plans are required to adopt and enforce occupational safety and health standards that are at least as effective as those promulgated by federal OSHA. State interpretations of its standards must also be as least as effective as federal OSHA interpretations. If you would like further information regarding Iowa¿s occupational safety and health requirements, you may contact Iowa at the following address:
Iowa Division of Labor Services
1000 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-02209
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Sincerely,
Thomas Galassi, Director
Directorate of Enforcement Programs


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12961-12965]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04293]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0943, FRL-9784-6]

Findings of Failure To Submit a Complete State Implementation
Plan for Section 110(a) Pertaining to the 2008 Lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is finding that seven states have not made complete
state implementation plan (SIP) submissions to address certain SIP
elements, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA
is determining that these seven states have not submitted complete SIPs
that provide the basic CAA program elements necessary to implement the
2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA
refers to these SIP submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. Of the
seven states, three are incomplete only due to prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD)-related elements, for which a federal
implementation plan (FIP) is in place. The remaining 43 states have
made complete submissions. Each finding of failure to submit
establishes a 24-month deadline for the EPA to promulgate FIPs to
address the outstanding SIP elements unless prior to the EPA
promulgating a FIP an affected state submits, and the EPA approves, a
SIP that corrects the deficiency.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 28, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Ms. Mia South: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Larry Wallace: telephone (919) 541-
0906, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C504-2, 109 TW
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause
finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary
or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without
prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA
judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or
elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no
submissions, or incomplete submissions, to meet the requirement. Thus,
notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
    For questions related to specific states mentioned in this notice,
please contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Regional offices                          States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Region I: Dave Conroy,     Massachusetts and Vermont.
 Air Program Branch Manager,
 Air Programs Branch, EPA New
 England, 1 Congress Street,
 Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02203-
 2211.
EPA Region II: Richard Ruvo,   New Jersey.
 Acting Chief, Air Programs
 Branch, EPA Region II, 290
 Broadway, 21st Floor, New
 York, NY 10007-1866.
EPA Region III: Cristina       Maryland and Pennsylvania.
 Fernandez, Air Program
 Manager, Air Quality
 Planning Branch, EPA Region
 III, 1650 Arch Street,
 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187.
EPA Region V: John Mooney,     Illinois.
 Air Program Branch Manager,
 Air Programs Branch, EPA
 Region V, 77 West Jackson
 Street, Chicago, IL 60604.
EPA Region VI: Guy Donaldson,  Oklahoma.
 Chief, Air Planning Section,
 EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross
 Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-
 2733.
EPA Region VIII: Monica        Colorado and South Dakota.
 Morales, Air Program Manger,
 Air Quality Planning Unit,
 EPA Region VIII Air Program,
 1595 Wynkoop St. (8P-AR),
 Denver, CO 80202-1129.
EPA Region IX: Doris Lo,       Hawaii.
 Acting Air Program Manager,
 Air Planning Office, EPA
 Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
 Street, San Francisco, CA
 94105.
EPA Region X: Debra Suzuki,    Oregon and Washington.
 Air Program Manager, Air
 Planning Unit, EPA Region X,
 Office of Air, Waste, and
 Toxics, Mail Code AWT-107,
 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
 WA 98101.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
II. Findings of Failure to Submit for States That Failed to Make an
Infrastructure SIP Submittal in Whole or in Part for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS
    A. Findings of Failure To Submit for States That Failed To Make
a Submittal
    B. Findings of Failure To Submit Specific Elements of Section
110(a)(2)
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

I. Background and Overview

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for lead.\1\
The agency revised the level of the primary lead standard from 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\, and revised
other aspects of the standard. The EPA also revised the secondary NAAQS
to make it identical to the revised primary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008, National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead, Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA section 110(a) imposes an obligation upon states to make a
SIP submission with respect to the 2008 lead NAAQS. CAA section
110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIPs that provide for the
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS
within 3 years following the promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.
The EPA has not prescribed a shorter deadline; therefore, October 15,
2011, was the statutory deadline. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as
applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the
``infrastructure'' SIP. The requirements for infrastructure SIPs
include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
necessarily affect the content of the submission. The content of such a
SIP submission may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 2008 lead NAAQS, the
EPA believes that many states have met many of the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous NAAQS.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area requirements are not
due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are
due pursuant to section 191.\2\ These requirements are: (i) Submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers
to a nonattainment area new source review permit program for major
sources as required in part D of title I of the CAA; and (ii)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertains to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
Therefore, this action does not cover these specific SIP elements in
section 110(a)(2). This action does cover the requirement that
infrastructure SIPs provide for a minor source permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Nonattainment area plans required by part D title I of the
CAA for the 2008 lead NAAQS are due 18 months after the effective
date of designation of an area as nonattainment. The nonattainment
plans are due June 30, 2012, for the first round of designations and
June 30, 2013, for the second round of designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also not, in this notice, issuing any findings of
failure to submit SIPs addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA. The EPA has historically interpreted section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
as establishing the required submittal date for SIPs addressing all of
the ``interstate transport'' requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)
including the provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance. The D.C. Circuit's recent opinion in EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012), however, concluded
that a SIP cannot be deemed to lack a required submission or deemed
deficient for failure to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation until
after the EPA quantifies that obligation. At this time, the deadline
for asking the Supreme Court to review this decision has not passed,
and the United States has made no decision regarding whether to seek
further appeal. Nonetheless, the EPA intends to act in accordance with
the holdings in the EME Homer City opinion. Therefore, at this time the
EPA is not making findings that states failed to submit SIPs to comply
with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    On September 24, 2012, litigants sued the EPA for failure to
perform certain mandatory duties under the CAA, including a failure to
find that the following states had failed to submit infrastructure SIPs
for the 2008 lead NAAQS: Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Vermont and Washington.\3\ As of February 14, 2013, the states
of Colorado, Maryland, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Dakota have
made complete submittals for their respective infrastructure SIPs for
the 2008 lead NAAQS. With respect to the remaining states, the EPA is
making findings of failure to submit, in whole or in part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. EPA, (N.D. Cal.
No. 12-cv-04968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After excluding SIP elements required by CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a nonattainment area new source
review permit program for major sources as required in part D of title
I of the CAA, 110(a)(2)(I) regarding plans for nonattainment areas, and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport affecting attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS, as explained above, the remaining
elements that are relevant to this action are the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (but not with respect to the permitting
program required by CAA title I subpart D), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)-
(H) and (J)-(M).
    For those states cited in this litigation that have not yet made an
infrastructure SIP submittal and those states that have made a
submittal that was not complete with respect to each relevant element
of section 110(a)(2), as applicable, the EPA is making a finding of
failure to submit. Four states have not made any submittal, and for
these states the EPA is making a finding with respect to all of the
relevant section 110(a)(2) SIP elements. Three states made a SIP
submittal that was found complete with respect to all required elements
except those elements that are related to PSD in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).\4\ For these three states, the EPA is
issuing findings of failure to submit only with respect to the PSD-
related elements. For both sets of states, these findings reflect
submissions received or not received as of February 14, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The PSD-related requirements are the requirements for a PSD
permitting program in sections 110 (a)(2)(C) and (J), the
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(a)(ii) not to interfere with
measures to prevent significant deterioration in another state's SIP
and the requirement for notifications to other states in section 110
(a)(2)(D)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These findings establish a 24-month deadline for the promulgation
by the EPA of a FIP, in accordance with section 110(c)(1) for those
states for which the EPA is making a finding unless the EPA has
approved a final SIP by that date. These findings of failure to submit
do not impose sanctions, or set deadlines for imposing sanctions as
described in section 179 of the CAA, because these findings do not
pertain to the elements of a part D, title I plan for nonattainment
areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I), and because these states
have not failed to make submissions in response to a SIP call pursuant
to section 110(k)(5). Moreover, the EPA has already promulgated a FIP
that

addresses PSD-related requirements for each of the states for which the
EPA is making a finding of failure to submit only for PSD-related
requirements. Therefore, this action will not trigger any additional
PSD FIP obligations in these three states. Two of the four states that
did not make any submittal also are currently subject to PSD FIPs. The
EPA recognizes that these five states may choose to have the existing
PSD FIP continue to govern the permitting of their sources, in which
case the current permitting process in each state will continue without
the need for further action by the state.
    To summarize, the EPA is finding that seven states, as identified
in section II of this notice, have not made a complete infrastructure
SIP submission to meet certain requirements of section 110(a)(2) that
are relevant to this action, as applicable, for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
The EPA is committed to working with these states to expedite
submissions as necessary, and to working with all the states to review
and act on their infrastructure SIP submissions in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.

II. Findings of Failure to Submit for States That Failed to Make an
Infrastructure SIP Submittal in Whole or in Part for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS

    The EPA is making findings that certain states identified below
have failed to submit a complete infrastructure SIP that provides
certain basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to
implement the 2008 lead NAAQS, by February 14, 2013. The EPA is
establishing a 24-month deadline by which time the EPA must promulgate
a FIP for each affected state to address the identified section
110(a)(2) requirements, unless the state submits and the EPA approves a
SIP revision that corrects the deficiency before the EPA promulgates a
FIP for the state, in accordance with section 110(c)(1). This action
will be effective 30 days after publication, on March 28, 2013.

A. Findings of Failure To Submit for States That Failed To Make a
Submittal

    As of February 14, 2013, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington
failed to make a submittal to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (but not with respect to the permitting program
required by CAA title I subpart D), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)-(H) and
(J)-(M).
    The effective date of this action starts a 24-month FIP clock for
the EPA to approve a SIP for the affected states that addresses those
requirements of section 110(a)(2), or for the EPA to finalize a FIP.
The EPA notes that it has already promulgated FIPs to address PSD-
related requirements for New Jersey and Washington and therefore this
action will not trigger additional PSD FIP obligations for these
states.

B. Findings of Failure To Submit Specific Elements of Section 110(a)(2)

    Hawaii, Illinois and Massachusetts made submittals as of February
14, 2013, that address all of the section 110(a)(2) requirements, with
the exception of the PSD-related requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J). The EPA notes that it has already
promulgated a FIP to address PSD-related requirements for each of these
states and therefore this action will not trigger any additional FIP
obligations for these states.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule
relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under
section 110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general authority-
related elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2008 lead NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states
submit SIPs that implement, maintain and enforce a new or revised NAAQS
which satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of
promulgation of such standard, or such shorter period as the EPA may
provide.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in
the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) or any other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industry entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (See 13 CFR part 121); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will
not impose any requirements on small entities. This action relates to
the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section
110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general authority-related
elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit SIPs
that implement, maintain and enforce a new or revised NAAQS which
satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of
promulgation of such standard, or such shorter period as the EPA may
provide.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538 for state, local and tribal governments and the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action relates
to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section
110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general authority-related
elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that states submit SIPs
that implement, maintain and enforce a new or revised NAAQS which
satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 3 years of
promulgation of such standard, or such shorter period as the EPA may
provide.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
states, or the relationship between the national government and the
states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA
establishes the scheme whereby states take the lead in developing plans
to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the
states and the EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the
NAAQS. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175. This rule responds to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit SIPs under section 110(a)
to satisfy certain elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
for the 2008 lead NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that
states submit SIPs that provide for implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS, and which satisfy the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2), within 3 years of promulgation of
such standard, or within such shorter period as the EPA may provide. No
tribe is subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan
under section 110(a) within 3 years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is not an action that concerns health or
safety risks. This action is finding that certain states have failed to
submit a complete SIP that provides certain basic program elements of
section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 2008 lead NAAQS.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.

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

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This notice is making a finding that certain states have
failed to submit a complete SIP that provides certain basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 2008 lead
NAAQS.

K. Congressional Review Act

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

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective March 28, 2013.

L. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    This final rule consisting of findings of failure to submit certain
of the required infrastructure SIP provisions is ``nationally
applicable'' within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). This rule affects
seven states across the country that are located in five of the ten EPA
Regions, five different federal circuits, and multiple time zones. In
addition, the rule addresses a common core of knowledge and analysis
involved in formulating the decision and a common interpretation of the
requirements of 40 CFR 51 appendix V applied to determining the
completeness of SIPs in states across the country.
    This determination is appropriate because in the 1977 CAA
Amendments that revised CAA section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-
324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope and effect
of this action extends to the five judicial circuits that include the
states across the country affected by this action. In these
circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its legislative history authorize
the Administrator to find the rule to be of ``nationwide scope or
effect'' and thus to indicate that venue for challenges lies in the
D.C. Circuit. Accordingly, the EPA is determining that this is a rule
of nationwide scope or effect. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days from the date final action is published in the Federal
Register. Filing a petition for review by the Administrator of this
final action does not affect the finality of the action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. Thus, any petitions for review of
this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date this final action is
published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution
control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 15, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-04293 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70171-70172]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-34-000
    Applicants: Bethel Wind Energy LLC, Elk Wind Energy LLC, BlackRock
NTR Renewable Power Fund (Master), L.P.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and
Expedited Consideration of Bethel Wind Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5275
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-94-004
    Applicants: Avista Corporation
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Avista Corp OATT Order No.
1000 Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5218
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER13-96-005
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 OATT Third
Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5260
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER13-99-003
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: OATT Order No. 1000
Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5246
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER13-120-005
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 OATT Third
Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5266
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2372-001
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: 2014-11-17 Petition for
Limited Tariff Waiver to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5269
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-420-000
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Filing
of a Joint Use Agreement to be effective 1/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5214
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-421-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Service
Agreement No. 3203; Queue No. W3-079 to be effective 10/27/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5216
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-422-000
    Applicants: Avista Corporation
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Avista Corp Order No. 1000
FERC Rate Schedule CG2 to be effective 1/1/201.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5219
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-423-000
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Rate Schedule No. 146
WestConnect Planning Participation Agreement Concurrence to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5224
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-424-000
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Rate Schedule No. 67
WestConnect Planning Participation Agreement Concurrence to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5225
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-425-000
    Applicants: PPL Montour, LLC
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Nov
2014 Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 11/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5230
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-426-000
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: APS Rate Schedule No. 274,
WestConnect Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5238
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-427-000
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    Description: Sec.  205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Revision to Twin Valley Hydroelectric SGIA--WDT Service Agreement No.
83 to be effective 1/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5245
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-428-000
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order No. 1000 OATT Third
Regional Compliance filing to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5247
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-429-000
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Columbia Grid Functional
Agreement to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5248
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-430-000
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Co
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: WestConnect Planning
Participation Agreement Concurrence Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5251
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-431-000
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: WestConnect Planning
Participation Agreement Concurrence Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5259
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-432-000
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing per 35.1: WestConnect Planning
Participation Agreement Concurrence Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5263
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-433-000
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Certificate of Concurrence
WestConnect Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5265
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    Docket Numbers: ER15-434-000

    Applicants: UNS Electric, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Certificate of Concurrence
WestConnect Planning Participation Agreement to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/14
    Accession Number: 20141117-5268
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/14

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: November 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27904 Filed 11-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 33454]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2507-001; ER98-2157-022.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc., Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Westar Energy, Inc., et
al.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-761-003.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: Compliance Filing to be effective 9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1524-000.
    Applicants: Kleantricity, Inc.
    Description: Additional Information of Kleantricity, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1769-001.
    Applicants: Viridian Energy NG, LLC.
    Description: Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 7/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1836-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: EKPC NITSA Errata to be effective 5/25/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1860-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: UAMPS ARTSOA Revised to be effective 6/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1861-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3320; Queue No. X3-043
to be effective 5/2/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/19/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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
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: May 30, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13706 Filed 6-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Ms. Beth Stimatz
Environmental Compliance Specialist
NorthWestern Energy Corporation
11 East Park Street
Butte, Montana  59701

Re:	NorthWestern Energy Corporation, Meriwether Compressor Station,
	Permit # SMNSR-B-000005-2022.003, Proposed Synthetic Minor New Source Review Permit

Dear Ms. Stimatz:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 has completed its review of NorthWestern Energy Corporation's application requesting a synthetic minor permit pursuant to the Tribal Minor New Source Review (MNSR) Permit Program at 40 CFR part 49 for the proposed modification of the existing Meriwether Compressor Station, located on Indian country lands within the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, in Glacier County, Montana.

The regulations at 40 CFR 49.157 require that the affected community and the public have the opportunity to submit written comments on any proposed MNSR permit. All written comments submitted within 30 calendar days after the public notice is published will be considered by the EPA in making its final permit decision. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, online electronic copies of the draft permit, technical support document, public notice and supporting materials may be viewed at: https://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8, on September 29, 2022. The public comment period will end at 5:00 p.m. MDT on October 31, 2022.

The conditions contained in the proposed permit will become effective and enforceable by the EPA if the permit is issued final. If you are unable to accept any term or condition of the draft permit, please submit your written comments, along with the reason(s) for non-acceptance to Claudia Smith, of my staff, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Comments may also be submitted via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0345).

If you have any questions concerning the proposed permit or technical support document, please contact Claudia Smith, of my staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

						Sincerely,

						Monica Morales
                              Acting Director
                                    Air and Radiation Division

cc: 	Gerald Wagner, Environmental Director, Blackfeet Indian Tribe
	Craig Smith, Compressor Engineer, NorthWestern Energy Corporation