[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44729-44732]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18049]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0008; FRL-9911-67]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P), telephone number: (703)
305-7090; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Lois Rossi,
Registration Division (RD) (7505P), telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each
contact person is: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each pesticide petition summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data support granting of the pesticide petitions. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance

    1. PP 3F8166. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0268). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
thiabendazole (2-(4-thiazolyl)benzimidazole) and its metabolite
benzimidazole, in or on vegetable, root (except sugar beet), subgroup
1B at 0.02 ppm; radish, tops at 0.02 ppm; onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A
at 0.02 ppm; brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5-A at 0.02 ppm;
vegetable, cucurbit group 9 at 0.02 ppm; barley, grain at 0.05 ppm;
barley, hay at 0.30 ppm; barley, straw at 0.30 ppm; wheat, grain at
0.05 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.30 ppm; wheat, hay at 0.30 ppm; wheat,
forage 0.30 ppm; oats, grain at 0.05 ppm; oats, hay at 0.30 ppm; oats,
straw at 0.30 ppm; oats, forage at 0.30 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05 ppm;
rye, straw at 0.30 ppm; rye, forage at 0.30 ppm; triticale, grain at
0.05 ppm; triticale, hay at 0.30 ppm; triticale, straw at 0.30 ppm;
triticale, forage at 0.30 ppm; alfalfa, forage at 0.02 ppm; alfalfa,
hay at 0.02 ppm; and spinach at 0.02 ppm. The Pesticide Analytical
Manual (PAM) Vol. II lists four spectrophotoflurometric methods
(Methods I, A, B and C) for spectrophotoflurometric method

(Method D) for determining residues of thiabendazole and 5-hydroxy-
thiabendazole in milk. This Notice of Filing (NOF) supersedes the NOF
published June 5, 2013, Vol 78. Number 198. (RD)
    2. PP 4E8257. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0315). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the fungicide, captan (N- trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene-1,2-
dicarboximide), in or on ginseng at 1.5 ppm. The analytical method, gas
chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD) is used to measure
and evaluate residues of captan per se in or on plant commodities, and
is listed as Method I, in PAM, Vol. II. (RD)
    3. PP 4E8264. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0346). IR-4, IR-4 Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08450, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
prohexadione calcium, in or on the raw agricultural commodities
strawberry at 0.3 ppm and watercress at 2.0 ppm. Analytical methods
using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS)
and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) are used to measure
and evaluate the chemical, prohexadione calcium, in strawberry and
watercress, respectively. (RD)
    4. PP 4F8240. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0303). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the of the herbicide,
mesotrione (2-[4-(methylsulfonyl)-2-notrobenzoyl]-1,3-cyclohexadione)
in or on the raw agricultural commodities; citrus fruit, crop group 10-
10 at 0.01 ppm; pome fruit, crop group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; stone fruit,
crop group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; tree nuts, crop group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm;
and almond hulls at 0.015 ppm. The practical and specific analytical
method RAM 366/01, utilizing high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) with tandem mass-spectrometry (MS/MS) detection, is available
for detecting and measuring the level of mesotrione in or on various
crop commodities. This method has been submitted to the Agency for
inclusion in the Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume II (PAM II) as a
confirmatory method. (RD)
    5. PP4F8249. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0314). Dow Agro Sciences, LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide, triclopyr,
[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid in or on milk, fat at
0.7 ppm. An analytical method using electron capture gas chromatography
is used to measure and evaluate the chemical triclopyr. (RD)
    6. PP 4F8254. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0340). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the plant growth
regulator, trinexapac-ethyl (4-(cyclopropyl-[alpha]-hydroxy-methylene)-
3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethyl ester), expressed as its
primary metabolite CGA-179500 (4-(cyclopropyl-[alpha]-hydroxy-
methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid), in or on rice, bran
at 1.5 ppm; rice, grain at 0.4 ppm; rice, straw at 0.07 ppm; rice,
wild, grain at 0.4 ppm; rye, bran at 2.5 ppm; rye, grain at 2.0 ppm;
rye, hay at 0.8 ppm; and rye, straw at 0.4 ppm. Adequate enforcement
methodology LC/MS/MS methods (GRM020.01A) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. (RD)
    7. PP 4F8256. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0339). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528, requests
to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
herbicide, saflufenacil (2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl(1-
methylethyl)amino]sulfonyl]benzamide) and its metabolites, in or on
alfalfa, forage at 0.075 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 0.10 ppm. Adequate
enforcement methodology LC/MS/MS methods D0603/02 (plants) and L0073/01
(livestock) are available to enforce the tolerance expression. (RD)
    8. PP 4F8263. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0354). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide
sedaxane (N-[2-[1,1'-bicyclopropyl]-2-ylphenyl]-3-(difluoromethyl)-1-
methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide), as a seed treatment for cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 0.01 ppm; and
beet, sugar at 0.01 ppm. Various crops were analyzed for sedaxane
(parent only) using a procedure for analysis of sedaxane (SYN524464)
that can distinguish between its trans- and cis- isomers (SYN508210 and
SYN508211). Plant matrices using method GRM023.01A, or modified method
GRM023.01B are taken through an extraction procedure with final
determination by HPLC with triple quadrupole MS detection LC-MS/MS.
(RD)

Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 4F8245. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0247) from BASF Corporation, 26
Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709 requests to amend the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.361 for the combined residues of the
herbicide, pendimethalin (N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-
2,6dinitrobenzenamine), and its 3, 5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite
(CL 202347) in or on the raw agricultural commodities of alfalfa,
forage at 80 ppm; and alfalfa, hay at 150 ppm. In plants the method is
aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation
by GC. The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. (RD)
    2. PP4F8249. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0314). Dow Agro Sciences, LLC, 9330
Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268-1054, requests to amend the
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.417 for residues of the herbicide, triclopyr,
[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid in or on milk, at 0.03
ppm. An analytical method using electron capture gas chromatography is
used to measure and evaluate the chemical triclopyr. (RD)

New Tolerance Exemption

    1. PP 3E8222. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0358). IR-4, Rutgers University, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, on behalf of CAI
America LLC, 309 Fairwinds Drive, Cary, NC 27518, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
nematocide, insecticide, and fungicide, Propylene Glycol Alginate, in
or on all raw agricultural food commodities. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because there are no anticipated residues,
and because there is already sufficient information with the Agency to
support an existing pre- and post-harvest exemption for propylene
glycol alginate when it is used as an inert ingredient per 40 CFR
180.910. (BPPD)
    2. PP 3F8195. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0353). D-I-1-4, Inc., a division of
1,4 Group, Inc., P.O. Box 860, Meridian, ID 83360, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the 1-octanol, applied post-harvest to stored potatoes and other
sprouting root and tuber crops. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is expected that, when used as proposed 1-
octanol would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.
(BPPD)

    3. PP 3F8219. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0155). SciReg, Inc., 12733
Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192 (on behalf of Andermatt
Biocontrol AG, Stahlermatten 6 CH-6146, Grossdietwil, Switzerland),
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of the microbial active ingredient, Autographa californica
multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus (AcMNPV) strain FV 11, in or on
all raw and processed agricultural commodities when used on crops in
accordance with good agricultural practices. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is seeking to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. (BPPD)
    4. PP 4F8233. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0352). DSM Food Specialties B.V.,
Alexander Fleminglaan 1, 2613 AX Delft, The Netherlands, requests to
amend the established an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of the fungicide, natamycin (6,ll,28-
Trioxatricyclo[<IP_ADDRESS>,7]octacosa-8,14,16,18,20-pentaene-25-
carboxylic acid, 22-[(3-amino-3,6-dideoxy-B~D-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-
l,3,26-trihydroxy-12-methyl-10-oxo-,
(1R,3S,5R,7R,8E,I2R,14E,16E,18E,20E, 22R,24S,25R,26S)- at 40 CFR
180.1315, in or on mushrooms in enclosed mushroom production facilities
to include post-harvest indoor use on pineapples. A worst-case estimate
of the natamycin exposure in the diet were calculated using the
following:
    a. Maximum pineapple consumption;
    b. Use of the consumption data of the most highly exposed
population group; and
    c. Use of the maximum residue found in the trials in any treated
juice or meat sample, rather than the most probable residue.

On this basis, calculations for exposure to natamycin through
consumption of treated pineapple yielded a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of
approximately one million. (BPPD)
    5. PP IN-10626. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0695). United Phosphorus, Inc.,
630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King of Prussia, PA 19406,
requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for 1,1'-iminodiproan-2-ol (diisopropanolamine; DIPA; CAS No. 110-97-4)
under 40 CFR 180.910 when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations as a neutralizer or stabilizer in a pesticide
formulation at no more than 10% by weight of the formulation. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption for inert
ingredients. (RD)
    6. PP IN-10684. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0325). Huntsman Corporation, 8600
Gosling Road, The Woodlands, TX 77381, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
ethanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-(CAS 107-36-8), and the
corresponding ammonium (CAS 57267-78-4), sodium (CAS
1562-00-1), potassium (CAS 1561-99-5), calcium
(10550-47-7), magnesium (17345-56-1), zinc (CAS 129756-32-7),
salts under 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930 when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations on all raw agricultural
commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for the establishment of a tolerance
exemption for inert ingredients. (RD)
    7. PP IN-10689. (EPA-HQ-OPP- 2014-0393). Celanese Ltd, 222 W. Las
Colinas Blvd., Suite 900N, Irving, TX 75039, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with ethane, ethenyltriethoxysilane
and sodium ethenesulfonate (1:1) minimum number average molecular
weight (in amu) 16,200 (CAS No. 913187-38-9) under 40 CFR 180.960 when
used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations as a
binder and wetting agent for seed coating and adjuvant applications in
pesticide formulations. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not required for the establishment of a tolerance
exemption for inert ingredients. (RD)
    8. PP IN-10693. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0326). Archer Daniels Midland
Company, 4666 E. Faries Parkway, Decatur, IL 62526, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of the Sodium lactate, when either of the following isomers: sodium L-
lactate (CAS 867-56-1) and sodium D,L-lactate (CAS
72-17-3) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, or to raw agricultural
commodities post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because it is not required for the
establishment of a tolerance exemption for inert ingredients. (RD)
    9. PP IN-10697. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0324). Specialty Fertilizer
Products LLC, 11550 Ash Street, Suite 220, Leawood, KS 66211, requests
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the butanedioic acid, 2-methylene-, polymer with 2,5-
furandione, sodium and ammonium salts, hydrogen peroxide-initiated (CAS
Reg. No. 556055-76-6 and 701908-99-8) under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as
a pesticide inert ingredient as a suspension agent in pesticide
formulations. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for the establishment of a tolerance
exemption for inert ingredients. (RD)
    10. PP IN-10700. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0332). BASF Corporation, 100
Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the for
2-Propenoic acid, butyl ester, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, N-
(hydroxymethyl)-2-methyl-2-propenamide and 2-propenenitrile (CAS No.
1469998-09-1) under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations as a binder polymer in a pesticide
formulations without limitation. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for the establishment of a
tolerance exemption for inert ingredients. (RD)
    11. PP 3F8193. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0329). Technology Sciences Group,
Inc., 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036 (on behalf of
Novozymes BioAg, Inc., 13100 W. Lisbon Rd., Suite 600, Brookfield, WI
53005), requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of Isaria fumosoroseus strain FE 9901 in or on
all food commodities when applied as an insecticide or miticide and
used in accordance with good agricultural practices. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is seeking to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and it
expects that, when used as directed, Isaria fumosoroseus strain FE 9901
will not result in residues that are of toxicological concern. (BPPD)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 21, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-18049 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82915-82917]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0639]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Narragansett Bay, Quonset, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters within a 1,700 foot radius of the barge M. J. VERROCHI
located in Narragansett Bay, Quonset, RI. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the
potential hazards created by dredging operations that include drilling
and blasting. When enforced, entry of vessels or persons into this zone
is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Southeastern New England or designated representative.

DATES:
    Effective date: This rule is effective from December 30, 2020
through January 31, 2021.
    Comments due date: Comments and related material must be received
by the Coast Guard on or before December 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0639 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule. You may submit
comments identified by docket number USCG-2020-0639 using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' portion for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Southeastern New England, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive sufficient details to evaluate the drilling and
blasting in Narragansett Bay until November 23, 2020. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by December 30, 2020, but lack sufficient time to collect public
comments and to address them before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register. For reasons stated in the preceding paragraph,
delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest because timely action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the drill and
blast project.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP)
Sector Southeastern New England has determined that potential hazards
exist with the loading of explosives, transit of explosives and storage
of explosives on the barge M. J. VERROCHI during the drill and blast
project. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from December 30, 2020 through
January 31, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 1,700 feet of the barge M. J. VERROCHI used for dredging
operations in Narragansett Bag near Quonset, RI. The duration of the
zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the barge M. J. VERROCHI
conducts dredging operations that include drilling and blasting. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The
Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety
zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited
to; publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via marine Channel 16 (VHF-FM) in advance of any enforcement.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This safety
zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering or transiting in
Narragansett Bay within 1,700 foot radius around the barge M. J.
VERROCHI. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and vessel
traffic will be able to seek permission from COTP to safely transit
through the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant impact on any vessel
owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule would not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone on the navigable waters of Narragansett
Bay, RI that will prohibit entry within a 1,700 foot radius of the
barge M. J. VERROCHI. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to

coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received
without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or
vessels.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this TIR as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0639 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0639  Safety Zone; Narragansett Bay, Quonset, RI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from surface to bottom, within a 1,700 foot radius around the
barge M. J. VERROCHI located in Narragansett Bay, Quonset, RI.
    (b) Enforcement Periods. This section is enforceable 24 hours a day
from December 30, 2020 through January 31, 2021, but will only be
enforced when deemed necessary by the COTP Southeastern New England.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Southeastern New England.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners of any
changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: December 15, 2020.
C.J. Glander,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2020-28111 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52925-52929]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87144; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.;
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fee Schedule
Assessed on Members To Establish a Monthly Trading Rights Fee

September 27, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On August 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the
``Exchange'') 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 (File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050) to amend the
EDGX fee schedule to establish a monthly Trading Rights Fee to be
assessed on Members. The proposed rule change was immediately effective
upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 20, 2019.\4\ The Commission has received one
comment letter on the proposal, and one response letter from the
Exchange.\5\ Under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is
hereby: (i) Temporarily suspending the proposed rule change; and (ii)
instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86686 (August 14,
2019), 84 FR 43222 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letters from: Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated September 12, 2019 (``SIFMA
Letter''); Adrian Griffiths, Assistant General Counsel, Cboe, dated
September 25, 2019 (``Exchange Response Letter''). Comment letters
are available on the Commission's website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboeedgx-2019-050/srcboeedgx2019050.htm.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Membership Fees section of the
EDGX fee schedule to establish a monthly Trading Rights Fee, which
would be assessed on Members that trade more than a specified volume in
U.S. equities.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange proposes to charge Members
a Trading Rights Fee of $500 per month for the ability to trade on the
Exchange.\8\ A Member would not be charged the monthly Trading Rights
Fee if it qualifies for one of the following waivers: (1) The Member
has a monthly ADV \9\ of less than 100,000 shares, (2) at least 90% of
the Member's orders submitted to the Exchange per month are retail
orders,\10\ or (3) a new Member is within the first three months of
their membership.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 43222. The Commission notes
that the Exchange's affiliates, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc., and Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., each also filed a
proposed rule change to amend their fee schedules to establish a
monthly Trading Rights Fee to be assessed on Members: CboeBYX-2019-
013, CboeBZX-2019-072, and CboeEDGA-2019-014, respectively.
    \8\ See id.
    \9\ See id. ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the
number of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADV is
calculated on a monthly basis. See id. at n.5.
    \10\ See id. at 43222.
    \11\ See id. For any month in which a firm is approved for
Membership with the Exchange, the monthly Trading Rights Fee would
be pro-rated in accordance with the date on which Membership is
approved. See id. at 43223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the

Act,\13\ the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of a self-regulatory organization (''SRO'') 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. As discussed below, the
Commission believes a temporary suspension of the proposed rule change
is necessary and appropriate to allow for additional analysis of the
proposed rule change's consistency with the Act and the rules
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposed Trading Rights Fee ``is
reasonable because it will assist in funding the overall regulation and
maintenance of the Exchange'' and will contribute to ``ensuring that
adequate resources are devoted to regulation.'' \14\ The Exchange also
believes the proposed fee is reasonable because it ``represents a
modest charge'' applied to firms that ``have chosen to become members
of the Exchange,'' and such firms consume more regulatory resources and
``benefit from the Exchange's regulatory efforts by having access to a
well-regulated market.'' \15\ The Exchange notes that its Regulatory
Services Agreement (``RSA'') costs, which cover regulatory services in
connection with market and financial surveillance, examinations,
investigations, and disciplinary procedure, have increased 17.5%, while
the Exchange's overall regulatory costs have grown 117%, from 2016 to
2019.\16\ The Exchange also asserts that the proposed Trading Rights
Fee is reasonable because the ``cost of this membership fee is
generally less than the analogous membership fees of other markets''
and that a number of national securities exchanges currently charge
similar Trading Rights fees to assist in funding their regulatory
efforts.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 43224.
    \15\ See id.
    \16\ See id.
    \17\ See id. The Exchange notes, for example, that the
Exchange's proposed Trading Rights Fee of $500 a month is
``substantially lower'' than the monthly $1,250 Trading Rights Fee
that Nasdaq assesses on its members. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it believes the proposed Trading Rights
Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply
equally to all Members that do not qualify for a waiver.\18\ The
Exchange further asserts that the proposed fee is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it will ``contribute to a portion of
the costs incurred by the Exchange in providing its Members with an
efficient and well-regulated market, which benefits all Members.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See id. at 43225.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to the proposed waivers pursuant to which Members would
not be charged the Trading Rights Fee, the Exchange states that it
believes that such waivers are reasonable.\20\ Specifically, the
Exchange states that the proposed waiver for Members that trade less
than a monthly ADV of 100,000 shares is reasonable because it would
allow such smaller Members to continue to trade at a lower cost.\21\ In
addition, the Exchange states the waiver is reasonable because such
firms consume fewer regulatory resources.\22\ The Exchange also asserts
that the proposed ADV threshold of 100,000 is reasonable because the
median ADV per firm per month on the Exchange is 443,192; therefore,
the proposed ADV threshold would serve to capture ``smaller volume firm
outliers as compared to the overall ADV across all firms.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 43224-25. The Exchange also asserts that the
waivers are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in the Notice.
See id. at 43225.
    \21\ See id. at 43224.
    \22\ See id.
    \23\ See id. at 43224-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also states that the second waiver for Members that
submit 90% or more of their orders per month as retail orders is
reasonable because it would ensure that ``retail broker members can
continue to submit orders for individual investors at a lower cost,
thereby continuing to encourage retail investor participation on the
Exchange.'' \24\ The Exchange also argues that increased liquidity in
retail order flow could benefit all market participants by
incentivizing other Members to send order flow to the Exchange and
increasing overall liquidity, as well by positively impacting market
quality by reflecting long-term investment intentions of retail
participation.\25\ The Exchange also asserts that the retail order
volume threshold is reasonable because it would serve to capture
broker-dealers that are primarily in the business of handling orders on
behalf of retail investors, rather than larger broker-dealers that may
route some retail orders on behalf of other broker-dealers, but for the
most part are engaging in a significant amount of activity not related
to servicing retail investors.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See id. at 43225.
    \25\ See id.
    \26\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally the Exchange states that it believes that not charging a
Trading Rights Fee for new Members is reasonable because it would
incentivize firms to become Members of the Exchange and bring
additional liquidity to the market to the benefit of all market
participants.\27\ The Exchange asserts that the proposed waiver for new
Members is also reasonable because ``it will allow new firms the
flexibility in resources needed to initially adjust to the Exchange's
market-model and functionality.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 43224.
    \28\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding competition, the Exchange states that it believes the
proposed rule change does not impose any burden on either intramarket
or intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\29\ The Exchange notes that,
with regard to intramarket competition, the proposed rule change would
apply equally to all Members that reach an ADV of 100,000 shares traded
or greater, those in which less than 90% of their order volume is
retail order volume per month, and those that are not within their
first three months of new Membership on the Exchange.\30\ In regard to
intermarket competition, the Exchange states that it operates in a
highly competitive market, and that this includes competition for
exchange memberships.\31\ The Exchange explains that Members have
numerous venues on which they can participate, including other equities
exchanges and off-exchange venues such as alternative trading
systems.\32\ The Exchange asserts that while trade-through and best
execution obligations may require a firm to access the Exchange, no
firm is compelled to be a Member of the Exchange in order to
participate on the Exchange, and accordingly firms may freely choose to
participate on the Exchange without holding a Membership.\33\ The
Exchange believes that if the proposed fee is unattractive to members,
the Exchange is likely to lose membership and market share as a
result.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See id. at 43225.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id. at 43225-26. The Exchange states that it represents
a small percentage of the overall market, and based on publicly
available information, no single equities exchange has more than 20%
market share, and no exchange group has more than 22% market share.
See id. at 43226. The Exchange references the Cboe Global Markets
U.S. Equities Market Volume Summary (July 31, 2019), available at
https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_share. See id. at n.15.
    \33\ See id. at 43226.
    \34\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter on the

proposed rule change.\35\ SIFMA notes that the Exchange previously
filed a proposed rule change to institute a trading rights fee, and the
Commission suspended that filing.\36\ SIFMA argues that, like the prior
proposal, the Exchange did not provide sufficient information in the
filing to support a finding that the proposal is consistent with the
Act.\37\ Specifically, SIFMA asserts that the Exchange should provide
quantitative data showing its anticipated revenues, costs and
profitability, as well as describe its methodology for estimating the
baseline and expected costs and revenues.\38\ Further, SIFMA argues
that the Exchange should provide specific detail regarding the amount
of its regulatory costs rather than information about broad percentage
increases in such costs.\39\ In addition, SIFMA believes the Exchange
should provide specific detail about the amount of revenue it would
expect to receive from the Trading Rights Fee, as well as the amount of
revenue it receives from other sources that are intended to fund
regulation, such as registration and licensing fees.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See supra note 5.
    \36\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 1.
    \37\ See id.
    \38\ See id. at 2.
    \39\ See id.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SIFMA also asserts the Exchange's Trading Rights Fee would not be
constrained by competition because broker-dealers must pay this fee
prior to being able to satisfy their regulatory obligations and
deciding where to route orders.\41\ SIFMA notes that trade-through
requirements under Regulation NMS, as well as broker-dealers' best
execution obligations, effectively require direct or indirect access
and connection to all registered exchanges, and each exchange remains
the exclusive purveyor of those services.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id.
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchange reiterated several of the arguments for
the proposed rule change that were provided in the Notice. In addition,
the Exchange states that contrary to SIFMA's assertions, the instant
filing contains significantly more information and analysis in regard
to the proposed fee, including information related to increases in
regulatory costs.\43\ The Exchange indicates that the proposed fee
would defray only a portion of these increasing costs.\44\ The Exchange
also asserts that in regard to competition, broker-dealers are not
compelled to become members of any particular exchange, and a number of
broker-dealers are able to meet their business and compliance needs by
trading via other arrangements.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Exchange Response Letter, supra note 5, at 2.
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally filed a proposal to implement a Trading
Rights Fee on April 29, 2019.\46\ That proposal, CboeEDGX-2019-029, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 16, 2019.\47\ On
June 28, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission: (i) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule change; and
(ii) instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\48\ The instant filing proposes an
identical Trading Rights Fee and raises similar concerns as to whether
it is consistent with the Act.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85838 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 22174.
    \47\ See id.
    \48\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86231 (June 28,
2019), 84 FR 32233 (July 5, 2019).
    \49\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\50\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \51\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which
requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \52\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \53\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \54\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether assessing the proposed monthly
Trading Rights Fee on certain Members is consistent with the statutory
requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the
Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed
rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules
thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do
not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(C) \57\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \58\ to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution
of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\59\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues,

fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities,'' \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be ``designed
to perfect the operation of a free and open market and a national
market system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and
not be ``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers,'' \61\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal imposes a new monthly Trading Rights
Fee on certain Members. The Commission notes that the Exchange's
statements in support of the proposed rule change are general in nature
and lack detail and specificity. For example, while the Exchange
asserts that the proposed fee will fund overall regulation and
maintenance of the Exchange and provides broad figures illustrating the
percentage by which RSA and regulatory costs have increased from 2016
to 2019, the Exchange has not described how the proposed fee would
address these regulatory increases.\63\ Further, the rationale provided
does not address how the proposed fee is an equitable allocation of
fees beyond noting that it applies to all Members who do not qualify
for a waiver, and broadly asserting that the proposed fee should
benefit ``all Members'' by contributing to the provision of ``an
efficient and well-regulated market'' for Members.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 43224.
    \64\ See id. at 43225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, one commenter asserts, among other concerns,
that the Exchange's cost-based discussion is not sufficiently detailed
to support its claims that the proposed Trading Rights Fee is
consistent with the requirements of the Act, and that the Exchange has
not offered sufficient detail to establish that the proposed fee would
be constrained by significant competitive forces.\65\ The commenter
indicates that, among other things, additional information addressing
both revenues and costs is lacking in the Exchange's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 5, at 1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \66\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\67\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \67\ See id.
    \68\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated; be designed to perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and the national market system, protect investors and
the public interest, and not be unfairly discriminatory; or not impose
an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by October 24, 2019.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by November 7, 2019. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of
views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to
Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral
presentation.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change, 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-2019-050 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-2019-050. 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-2019-050 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2019. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by November 7, 2019.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\71\ that File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2019-050 be and hereby is,
temporarily suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting
proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21474 Filed 10-2-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19544-19548]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08421]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0832; FRL-9925-33-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Northern
Sierra Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Northern Sierra Air Quality
Management District (NSAQMD or the District) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submitted SIP revision contains
the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submitted SIP revision also
contains negative declarations for volatile organic compound (VOC)
source categories for the NSAQMD. We are approving the submitted SIP
revision under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 12, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 13, 2015. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0832, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will

be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment.
If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and
cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider
your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shears, EPA Region IX, (213)
244-1810<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal.
    A. What document did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of document?
    C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?
    B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA's recommendations to strengthen the RACT SIP.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. The State's Submittal

A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the document addressed by this action with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted to EPA by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local  Agency                               Document                   Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSAQMD.....................................  2007 Reasonably Available Control           6/25/07          2/7/08
                                              Technology (RACT) State
                                              Implementation Plan (SIP) for
                                              Western Nevada County 8-Hour Ozone
                                              Non-Attainment Area (``2007 RACT
                                              SIP'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2007 RACT SIP became complete by operation of law on August 7,
2008 pursuant to CAA 110(k)(1)(B).

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous submitted version of NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the RACT SIP submission?

    Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm
human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
States to submit enforceable regulations that control VOC and
NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above require
implementation of RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and any
other major stationary source of VOCs or NOX. The NSAQMD is
subject to this requirement because it regulates western Nevada County,
which is designated and classified as a subpart 2 moderate ozone
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305).
Therefore, NSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT-level controls for all
sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG stationary
sources of VOCs or NOX in western Nevada County.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP submission?

    NSAQMD regulates a nonattainment area classified as subpart 2
moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305). CAA
Section 182(b)(2) and (f), as well as 40 CFR 51.912(a)(1) require that
SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above
require implementation of RACT for any source covered by a CTG document
and any other major stationary source of VOCs or NOX. Any
stationary source that emits or has a potential to emit at least 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX in a moderate ozone
nonattainment area is considered a major stationary source (see CAA
sections 182(b(2)) and (f) and 302(j)). Where there are no existing
sources covered by a particular CTG document or no other major
stationary sources of VOCs or NOX, states may, in lieu of
adopting RACT requirements, adopt negative declarations certifying that
there are no such sources in the relevant nonattainment area (see
Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors,
(May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) Questions and Answers'' page 7).
    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section
182 RACT SIPs include the following:

1. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
2. ``Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact
Areas With Deferred Dates''--Final Rule (69 FR 23858; April 30,
2004).
3. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''
(57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register, May 25, 1988, Revised January 11, 1990, U.S. EPA, Air
Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (``The Blue Book'').
5. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule
Deficiencies, August 21, 2001, U.S. EPA Region IX (the ``Little
Bluebook'').
6. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (``the
NOX Supplement'').

7. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers.''
8. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's
understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
9. ``Final Rule to Implement the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard: Classification of Areas That Were Initially
Classified Under Subpart 1; Revision of the Anti-Backsliding
Provisions To Address 1-Hour Contingency Measure Requirements;
Deletion of Obsolete 1-Hour Standard Provision''--Final Rule (77 FR
28424; May 14, 2012).
10. ``Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably Available
Control Technology'', EPA (June 1992).
11. Beyond VOC RACT Requirements'', EPA (April 1995).
12. EPA's CTGs http://www.epa.gov/glo/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html.
13. CARB's emissions inventory database http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php
14. NSAQMD, CARB and EPA Region IX databases of NSAQMD rules--
NSAQMD: http://myairdistrict.com/index.php?Itemid=71, CARB: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ridb.htm, EPA: http://epa.gov/region09/air/sips/index.html.

B. Does the RACT SIP submission meet the evaluation criteria?

    The 2007 RACT SIP includes three elements, as described further
below:

1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX rules for sources subject
to a CTG.
2. Negative declarations where there are no facilities subject to a
CTG.
3. Negative declaration for major non-CTG sources of VOC or
NOX.

    NSAQMD provided its 2007 RACT SIP for public comment prior to the
public hearing for adoption. No written comments were received by the
District. NSAQMD also supplemented 2007 RACT with various other
submittals as described below.
1. Evaluations of VOC and NOX Rules for Sources Subject to a
CTG
    NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP referenced various VOC rules that apply to
western Nevada County. Subsequent to its adoption of the 2007 RACT SIP
on June 25, 2007, NSAQMD amended a number of these rules and submitted
them to EPA for approval into the SIP. These submittals effectively
supersede the 2007 RACT SIP with respect to Rules 213, 214, 215 and
228. The following rules were subsequently approved by EPA into the
SIP: Rule 214 (78 FR 897, January 7, 2013), Rule 215 (76 FR 44493, July
26, 2011), Rule 227 (74 FR 56120, October 30, 2009), and Rule 228 (77
FR 47536, August 9, 2011). Rule 213 was rescinded by NSAQMD (April 25,
2011), and was incorporated into the SIP-approved Rule 214.
    In our recent approvals of these rules, we found that the rules
fulfilled RACT requirements. We are not aware of information suggesting
that additional controls are needed to fulfill RACT since our approval
of these rules. Therefore, we concur that NSAQMD implements has adopted
RACT-level rules requirements for vapor recovery systems.
2. Negative Declarations Where There Are No Facilities Subject to a CTG
    Table 2 of NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP lists not only CTGs, but also
other documents relevant to establishing RACT at major sources.
Negative declarations are only required for CTG source categories for
which the District has no sources covered by the CTG. A negative
declaration is not required for non-CTG source categories. Table 2
below lists the CTG source categories that remain after we excluded
non-CTG documents from NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP Table 2. The District
indicated it does not anticipate sources in these categories in the
future. We searched CARB's emissions inventory database to verify there
are no facilities in NSAQMD that might be subject to the CTGs listed
below. We concur with the District's negative declarations.
    On August 14, 2008 and May 17, 2011, CARB submitted NSAQMD's
negative declarations for 10 CTGs issued or updated by EPA between 2006
and 2008. EPA approved these declarations on April 18, 2012 (77 FR
23130).

                  Table 2--NSAQMD Negative Declarations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CTG Source category                CTG Reference document
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace.........................  EPA-453/R-97-004, Aerospace CTG and
                                     MACT.
Automobile and Light-duty Trucks,   EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
 Surface Coating of.                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.
Cans and Coils, Surface Coating of  EPA-450/2-77-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                     Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and
                                     Light-Duty Trucks.
Flat Wood Paneling, Surface         EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of
 Coating of.                         Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     VII: Factory Surface Coating of
                                     Flat Wood Paneling.
Gasoline Loading Terminals........  EPA-450/2-77-026, Control of
                                     Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck
                                     Gasoline Loading Terminals.
Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and       EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of
 Flexography.                        Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources, Volume
                                     III: Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and
                                     Flexography.
Large Appliances, Surface Coating   EPA-450/2-77-034, Control of
 of.                                 Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     V: Surface Coating of Large
                                     Appliances.
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners......  EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Magnet Wire, Surface Coating for    EPA-450/2-77-033, Control of
 Insulation of.                      Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     IV: Surface Coating of Insulation
                                     of Magnet Wire.
Metal Furniture Coatings..........  EPA-450/2-77-032, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
                                     III: Surface Coating of Metal
                                     Furniture.
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing     EPA-450-83-007, Control of Volatile
 Plants Equipment Leaks.             Organic Compound Equipment Leaks
                                     from Natural Gas/Gasoline
                                     Processing Plants.
Petroleum Liquid Storage in         EPA-450/2-78-047, Control of
 External Floating Roof Tanks.       Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Petroleum Liquid Storage in
                                     External Floating Roof Tanks.
Petroleum Refineries..............  EPA-450/2-77-025, Control of
                                     Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                     Wastewater Separators, and Process
                                     Unit Turnarounds.
                                    EPA-450/2-78-036, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Petroleum Refinery Equipment.

Pharmaceutical Products...........  EPA-450/2-78-029, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Synthesized
                                     Pharmaceutical Products.
Pneumatic Rubber Tires,             EPA-450/2-78-030, Control of
 Manufacture of.                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
                                     Tires.
Polyester Resin...................  EPA-450/3-83-008, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Manufacture of High-Density
                                     Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
                                     Polystyrene Resins.
                                    EPA-450/3-83-006, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Leaks
                                     from Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                     Equipment.
Shipbuilding/Repair...............  EPA-450/3-94-032, Shipbuilding/
                                     Repair.
Solvent Metal Cleaning............  EPA-450/2-77-022, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Emissions from
                                     Solvent Metal Cleaning.
Synthetic Organic Chemical          EPA-450/3-84-015, Control of
 Manufacturing.                      Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Air Oxidation Processes in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
                                    EPA-450/4-91-031, Control of
                                     Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
                                     from Reactor Processes and
                                     Distillation Operations in
                                     Synthetic Organic Chemical
                                     Manufacturing Industry.
Wood Furniture....................  EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Negative Declaration for Major Non-CTG Sources of VOC or
NOX
    The 2007 RACT SIP included a negative declaration for major non-CTG
sources of VOC and NOX. EPA agrees that there are no major
non-CTG sources of NOX or VOCs in the western Nevada County
nonattainment area.
4. Conclusion
    We find that NSAQMD's 2007 RACT SIP submission, including the
negative declarations and the rule revisions that were SIP-approved
after 2007, adequately demonstrate that NSAQMD's rules satisfy RACT for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Strengthen the RACT SIP

    Our TSD describes additional revisions that we recommend for the
next time NSAQMD modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted SIP revision because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same SIP revision. If we
receive adverse comments by May 13, 2015, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on June 12, 2015. This will incorporate these
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a specific
provision of this SIP revision and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the SIP revision, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the SIP revision that are not the subject of an adverse
comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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);
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects using practical 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 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. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 12, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(456) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (456) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on February 7, 2008 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Western Nevada County 8-Hour
Ozone Non-Attainment Area as adopted on June 25, 2007.

0
3. Section 52.222 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(9)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.222  Negative declarations.

    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) EPA-453/R-97-004 Aerospace CTG and MACT; EPA-450/2-77-008
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks; EPA-450/2-78-032, Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
VII: Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; EPA-450/2-77-026,
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals;
EPA-450/2-78-033, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing
Stationary Sources--Volume III: Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and
Flexography; EPA-450/2-77-034 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume V: Surface Coating of Large
Appliances; EPA-450/3-82-009, Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; EPA-450/2-77-033 Control
of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire; EPA-450/2-77-032
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary
Sources--Volume III: Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; EPA-450-83-
007, Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks from Natural
Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; EPA-450/2-78-047, Control of Volatile
Organic Compound Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External
Floating Roof Tanks; EPA-450/2-77-025 Control of Refinery Vacuum
Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds;
EPA-450/2-78-036 Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from
Petroleum Refinery Equipment; EPA-450/2-78-029 Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical
Products; EPA-450/2-78-030 Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires; EPA-450/3-83-008 Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins; EPA-450/3-83-006
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic
Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment; EPA-450/3-94-032,
Shipbuilding/Repair; EPA-450/2-77-022, Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning; EPA-450/3-84-015 Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; EPA-450/4-91-031
Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes
and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry; EPA-453/R-96-007, Wood Furniture.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-08421 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P