[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13263-13264]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 10f-3; SEC File No. 270-237; OMB Control No. 3235-0226.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension and approval of the collection of
information discussed below.
    Section 10(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a)
(the ``Act'') prohibits a registered investment company (``fund'') from
purchasing any security during an underwriting or selling syndicate if
the fund has certain relationships with a principal underwriter for the
security. Congress enacted this provision in 1940 to protect funds and
their shareholders by preventing underwriters from ``dumping''
unmarketable securities on affiliated funds.
    Rule 10f-3 (17 CFR 270.10f-3) permits a fund to engage in a
securities transaction that otherwise would violate section 10(f) if,
among other things: (i) Each transaction effected under the rule is
reported on Form N-SAR; (ii) the fund's directors have approved
procedures for purchases made in reliance on the rule, regularly review
fund purchases to determine whether they comply with these procedures,
and approve necessary changes to the procedures; and (iii) a written
record of each transaction effected under the rule is maintained for
six years, the first two of which in an easily accessible place. The
written record must state: (i) From whom the securities were acquired;
(ii) the identity of the underwriting syndicate's members; (iii) the
terms of the transactions; and (iv) the information or materials on
which the fund's board of directors has determined that the purchases
were made in compliance with procedures established by the board.
    The rule also conditionally allows managed portions of fund
portfolios to purchase securities offered in otherwise off-limits
primary offerings. To qualify for this exemption, rule 10f-3 requires
that the subadviser that is advising the purchaser be contractually
prohibited from providing investment advice to any other portion of the
fund's portfolio and consulting with any other of the fund's advisers
that is a principal underwriter or affiliated person of a principal
underwriter concerning the fund's securities transactions.
    These requirements provide a mechanism for fund boards to oversee
compliance with the rule. The required recordkeeping facilitates the
Commission staff's review of rule 10f-3 transactions during routine
fund inspections and, when necessary, in connection with enforcement
actions.
    The staff estimates that approximately 350 funds engage in a total
of approximately 4,400 rule 10f-3 transactions each year.\1\ Rule 10f-3
requires that the purchasing fund create a written record of each
transaction that includes, among other things, from whom the securities
were purchased and the terms of the transaction. The staff estimates
\2\ that it takes an average fund approximately 30 minutes per
transaction and approximately 2,200 hours \3\ in the aggregate to
comply with this portion of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\These estimates are based on staff extrapolations from
filings with the Commission.
    \2\Unless stated otherwise, the information collection burden
estimates contained in this Supporting Statement are based on
conversations between the staff and representatives of funds.
    \3\This estimate is based on the following calculation: (30
minutes x 4,400 = 2,200 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The funds also must maintain and preserve these transactional
records in accordance with the rule's recordkeeping requirement, and
the staff estimates that it takes a fund approximately 20 minutes per
transaction and that annually, in the aggregate, funds spend
approximately 1,467 hours \4\ to comply with this portion of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\This estimate is based on the following calculations: (20
minutes x 4,400 transactions = 88,000 minutes; 88,000 minutes / 60 =
1,467 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, fund boards must, no less than quarterly, examine each
of these transactions to ensure that they comply with the fund's
policies and procedures. The information or materials upon which the
board relied to come to this determination also must be maintained and
the staff estimates that it takes a fund 1 hour per quarter and, in the
aggregate, approximately 1,400 hours \5\ annually to comply with this
rule requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\This estimate is based on the following calculation: (1 hour
per quarter x 4 quarters x 350 funds = 1,400 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff estimates that reviewing and revising as needed written
procedures for rule 10f-3 transactions takes, on average for each fund,
two hours of a compliance attorney's time per year.\6\ Thus, annually,
in the aggregate, the staff estimates that funds spend a total of
approximately 700 hours \7\ on monitoring and revising rule 10f-3
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These averages take into account the fact that in most
years, fund attorneys and boards spend little or no time modifying
procedures and in other years, they spend significant time doing so.
    \7\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (350
funds x 2 hours = 700 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that
approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements
each year.\8\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to
draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in
order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in
rule 10f-3. Because these additional clauses are identical to the
clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts
to rely on rules 12d3-1, 17a-10, and 17e-1, and because we believe that
funds that use one such

rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3 hour time
burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that the
burden allocated to rule 10f-3 for this contract change would be 0.75
hours.\9\ Assuming that all 600 funds that enter into new subadvisory
contracts each year make the modification to their contract required by
the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification requirement
will result in 450 burden hours annually.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The use of subadvisers has grown rapidly over the last
several years, with approximately 600 portfolios that use
subadvisers registering between December 2005 and December 2006.
Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 31
percent of funds are advised by subadvisers.
    \9\ This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours
/ 4 rules = .75 hours).
    \10\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
(0.75 hours x 600 portfolios = 450 burden hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff estimates, therefore, that rule 10f-3 imposes an
information collection burden of 6217 hours.\11\ This estimate does not
include the time spent filing transaction reports on Form N-SAR, which
is encompassed in the information collection burden estimate for that
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (2,200
hours + 1,467 hours + 1,400 hours + 700 hours + 450 hours = 6,217
total burden hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Alexander--T.--
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: March 6, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4836 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Permit Number: 93-A-339-S3

Plant Number:  82-02-006

Company: MidAmerican Energy Company  -  Riverside Generating Station

Contact Person:
Responsible Party:
Doug Haiston
Same
General Manager

(563) 333-8503

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

6001 State Street

Bettendorf, IA 52722

                              Permitted Equipment

Emission Point ID: EP-1

Emission Unit(s) and Control Equipment:

                                     EU ID
                                  Description
                            Maximum Rated Capacity
                     Control Equipment Description and ID
                                     EU-1
Boiler #9
                          1,202 million Btu per hour,
                                  Natural Gas
                      Low-NOx Burner & Over-Fire Air
                                    (CE-2)

Equipment Location: 6001 State Street
                        Bettendorf, Iowa 52722

Issuance of this permit shall not relieve the owner or operator of the responsibility to comply fully with applicable provisions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and any other requirements of local, state, and federal law.

                                Project Number
                              Project Description
                                 Stack Testing
                                 Issuance Date
                                    18-194
              Modify Emission Limits, NESHAP Applicability, and
                               Operating Limits
                                      No
                                  07/03/2018

                                     Under the Direction of the Director of the
                                                Department of Natural Resources

                               PERMIT CONDITIONS

1.  Emission Limits

The owner or operator is required to report all emissions as required by law, regardless of whether a specific emission limit has been established in this permit.  The following emission limits shall not be exceeded:

                                   Pollutant
                                   lb/hr[1]
                                 Other Limits
                                Reference/Basis
Particulate Matter (PM)  -  State
                                      NA
                             0.39 lb/MMBtu[1][, 2]
                            567 IAC 23.3(2)"b"
Opacity
                                      NA
                                   40%[3, 4]
                            567 IAC 23.3(2)"d"
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
                                      NA
                                   500 ppmv
                            567 IAC 23.3(3)"e"

   [1] The emission limit is expressed as the average of three (3) runs.

   [2] The emission limit was established under Project Number 04-596, per facility's request, to limit the potential-to-emit for Boiler #9 (EU-1).  It applies to PM, PM10, and PM2.5.

   [3] The emission limit is based on a six (6) minute average.

   [4] An exceedance of the indicator opacity of 25% will require the owner or operator to promptly investigate the emission unit and make corrections to operations or equipment associated with the exceedance.  If exceedances continue after the corrections, the Department may require additional proof to demonstrate compliance (e.g., stack testing).

2.  Compliance Demonstration(s)

                        Compliance Demonstration Table

                                   Pollutant
                            Compliance Methodology
                                   Frequency
                                 Test Run Time
                                  Test Method
PM  -  State
                                     None
                                      NA
                                    1 hour
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 5
40 CFR 51 Appendix M Method 202
Opacity
                                     None
                                      NA
                                    1 hour
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9
SO2
                                     None
                                      NA
                                    1 hour
40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 6C

Stack test is not required by this permit modification at this time.

If stack testing is required, the owner or the owner's authorized agent shall use the test method and run time listed in the "Compliance Demonstration Table" unless another testing methodology is approved by the Department prior to testing.

Each emissions compliance test must be approved by the Department.  Unless otherwise specified by the Department, each test shall consist of three (3) separate runs.  The arithmetic mean of three (3) acceptable test runs shall apply for compliance, unless otherwise indicated by the Department.

Per 567 IAC 25.1(7)"a", at the Department's request, a pretest meeting shall be held not later than fifteen (15) days before the owner or operator conducts the compliance demonstration.  A testing protocol shall be submitted to the Department no later than fifteen (15) days before the owner or operator conducts the compliance demonstration.  Representatives from the Department shall attend this meeting, along with the owner and the testing firm, if any.  It shall be the responsibility of the owner to coordinate and schedule the pretest meeting.  A representative of the Department shall be allowed to witness the test(s).  The Department shall reserve the right to impose additional, different, or more detailed testing requirements.

The owner shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of test ports.  The unit(s) being sampled shall be operated in a normal manner at its maximum continuous output as rated by the equipment manufacturer, or the rate specified by the owner as the maximum production rate at which this unit(s) will be operated. In cases where compliance is to be demonstrated at less than the maximum continuous output as rated by the manufacturer, and it is the owner's intent to limit the capacity to that rating, the owner may submit evidence to the Department that this unit(s) has been physically altered so that capacity cannot be exceeded, or the Department may require additional testing, continuous monitoring, reports of operating levels, or any other information deemed necessary by the Department to determine whether this unit(s) is in compliance.

3.  Emission Point Characteristics

This emission point shall conform to the specifications listed below:

                                   Parameter
                                     Value
Stack Height (feet from the ground)
346.3
Discharge Style
Vertical, unobstructed
Stack Outlet Dimensions (inches)
160.8
Exhaust Temperature ([o]F)
297
Exhaust Flowrate (scfm)
320,785

The temperature and flowrate are intended to be representative and characteristic of the design of the permitted emission point.  The Department recognizes that the temperature and flow rate may vary with changes in the process and ambient conditions.  If it is determined that any of the emission point characteristics above are different than the values stated, the owner or operator shall submit a request either by electronic mail or written correspondence to the Department within thirty (30) days of the discovery to determine if a permit amendment is required or submit a permit application requesting to amend the permit.

4.  Federal Standards

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS):

 Boiler #9 (EU-1) is of the source category, but not subject to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Subpart D (Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators), because this unit was constructed prior to the applicability date of August 17, 1971 for Subpart D and it has not been modified since this date.

 Boiler #9 (EU-1) is of the source category, but not subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da (Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units), because this unit was constructed prior to the applicability date of September 18, 1978 for Subpart Da and it has not been modified since this date.

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP):

 Boiler #9 (EU-1) is not an affected emission unit under the federal standards for emission of hazardous air pollutants for source categories, as defined in 40 CFR Part 63, because there are no applicable categories at this time.

 Acid Rain:

 This facility (Plant Number 82-02-006) is considered an affected source under Title IV of the Clean Air Act definitions as emission units at this source are subject to the acid rain emission reduction requirements or the acid rain emission limitations, as adopted by the Department by reference (See 567 IAC 22.120  -  567 IAC 22.148).

5.  Operating Requirements with Associated Monitoring and Recordkeeping

Unless specified by a federal regulation, all records as required by this permit shall be kept on-site for a minimum of two (2) years and shall be available for inspection by the Department.  Records shall be legible and maintained in an orderly manner.  The operating requirements and associated recordkeeping for this permit shall be:

EQUIPMENT OPERATION and MATERIAL USAGE REQUIREMENTS

 Boiler #9 (EU-1) shall combust only natural gas.

 The owner or operator shall operate and maintain Boiler #9 (EU-1) according to good engineering practices.

 The owner or operator shall maintain records of all inspection and maintenance activities and any action resulting from these.

 The amount of natural gas combusted by Boiler #9 (EU-1) shall not exceed 9,500 million cubic feet per 12-month rolling period.

 The owner or operator shall record the amount, in million cubic feet, of natural gas combusted by Boiler #9 (EU-1) on a monthly basis.

 The owner or operator shall calculate and record the amount, in million cubic feet, of natural gas combusted by Boiler #9 (EU-1) on a rolling 12-month basis.

6.  Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS)

Continuous emission monitoring is not required by this permit at this time.

7.  Department Review

This permit is issued under the authority of 567 Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 22.3.  The proposed equipment has been evaluated for conformance with Iowa Code Chapter 455B; 567 IAC Chapters 20  -  35; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51, 52, 60, 61, and 63 and has the potential to comply.  This permit is issued based on information submitted by the applicant. Any misinformation, false statements or misrepresentations by the applicant or by the applicant's representative(s) shall cause this permit to be void.

No review has been undertaken on the engineering aspects of the equipment or control equipment other than the potential of that equipment for reducing air contaminant emissions.  The Department assumes no liability, directly or indirectly, for any loss due to damage to persons or property caused by, resulting from, or arising out of the design, installation, maintenance or operation of the proposed equipment.

8.  Owner and Operator Responsibility

This permit is for the construction and operation of specific emission unit(s), control equipment, and emission point as described in this permit and in the application for this permit.  The permit holder, owner, and operator of the facility shall assure that the installation of the equipment listed in this permit conforms to the design in the application (i.e. type, maximum rated capacity, etc.).  No person shall construct, install, reconstruct or alter this emission unit(s), control equipment, or emission point without the required amended permit.

Any owner or operator of the specified emission unit(s), control equipment, or emission point, including any person who becomes an owner or operator subsequent to the date on which this permit is issued, is responsible for assuring that the installation, operation, and maintenance of the equipment listed in this permit is in compliance with the provisions of this permit and all other applicable requirements  and that adequate operation and maintenance is provided to ensure that no condition of air pollution is created.

9.  Transferability

Unless the equipment is portable, this permit is not transferable from one location to another or from one piece of equipment to another.  See Condition 12.A.(2) for notification requirements for relocating portable equipment (567 IAC 22.3(3)"f").

10.  Construction

 General Requirements:
      It is the owner's responsibility to ensure that construction conforms to the final plans and specifications as submitted.

      In permit amendments, all provisions of the original permit remain in full force and effect unless they are specifically changed by the permit amendment.  If a proposed project is not timely completed, the owner or operator shall seek a permit amendment in order to revert back to the most recent previous version of the permit.  The previous, unchanged permit provisions are included in the amendment for your convenience only and are unappealable.

      This permit or amendment shall become void if any one of the following conditions occurs:
 The construction or implementation of the proposed project, as it affects the emission point permitted herein, is not initiated within eighteen (18) months after the permit issuance date; or
 The construction or implementation of the proposed project, as it affects the emission point permitted herein, is not completed within thirty-six (36) months after the permit issuance date; or
 The construction or implementation of the proposed project, as it affects the emission point permitted herein, is not completed within a time period specified elsewhere in this permit.

 Changes to Plans and Specifications:
The owner or operator shall amend this permit or amendment prior to startup of the equipment if:
 Any changes are made to the final plans and specifications submitted for the proposed project; or
 This permit becomes void.

Changes to the final plans and specification shall include changes to plans and specifications for permitted equipment and control equipment and the specified operation thereof.

 Amended Permits:
The owner or operator may continue to act under the provisions of the previous permit for the affected emission unit(s) and emission point, together with any previous amendment to the permit, until one of the following conditions occurs:
          The proposed project authorized by this amendment is completed as it affects the emission unit(s) and emission point permitted herein; or
          This current amendment becomes void.

11.  Excess Emissions

Per 567 IAC 24.1(1), excess emissions during a period of startup, shutdown, or cleaning of control equipment are not a violation of the emission standard if it is accomplished expeditiously and in a manner consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions except when another regulation applicable to the unit or process provides otherwise.  Cleaning of control equipment, which does not require the shutdown of process equipment, shall be limited to one (1) six-minute period per one (1) hour period.

An incident of excess emissions other than the above is a violation and may be subject to criminal penalties according to Iowa Code 455B.146A.  If excess emissions are occurring, either the control equipment causing the excess shall be repaired in an expeditious manner, or the process generating the emissions shall be shut down within a reasonable period of time, as specified in 567 IAC 24.1.

An incident of excess emissions shall be orally reported by telephone, electronic mail or in person to the appropriate field office within eight (8) hours of or at the start of the first working day following the onset of the incident [See Permit Condition 12.B.(1)]. A written report of an incident of excess emissions shall be submitted as a follow-up to all required initial reports within seven (7) days of the onset of the upset condition [See Permit Condition 12.B.(2)].

12.  Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping

 The owner or operator shall furnish the Department the following written notifications:
          Per 567 IAC 22.3(3)"b":
             The date construction, installation, or alteration is initiated postmarked within thirty (30) days following initiation of construction, installation, or alteration.
             The actual date of startup, postmarked within fifteen (15) days following the start of operation.
          Per 567 IAC 22.3(3)"f," when portable equipment for which a permit has been issued is to be transferred from one location to another, the Department shall be notified:
          At least fourteen (14) days before equipment relocation if the equipment will be located in a nonattainment area for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or a maintenance area for the NAAQS.
          At least seven (7) days before equipment relocation.
          Per 567 IAC 22.3(8), a new owner shall notify the Department of the transfer of equipment ownership within thirty (30) days of the occurrence.  The notification shall include the following information:
             The date of ownership change; the name, address, and telephone number of the responsible official, the contact person, and the owner of the equipment both before and after the ownership change; and the construction permit number(s) of the equipment changing ownership.
          Unless specified per a federal regulation, the owner or the owner's authorized agent shall notify the Department in writing not less than thirty (30) days before a required test or performance evaluation of a continuous emission monitor [567 IAC 25.1(7)].  The notification shall include:
             The time; the place; the name of the person who will conduct the tests; and other information as required by the Department.
         If the owner or operator does not provide timely notice to the Department, the Department shall not consider the test results or performance evaluation results to be a valid demonstration of compliance with the applicable rules or permit conditions.  Upon written request, the Department may allow a notification period of less than thirty (30) days.

 The owner or operator shall furnish the Department with the following reports:
 Per 567 IAC 24.1(2), an incident of excess emissions as defined in 567 IAC 20.2 shall be reported within eight (8) hours or at the start of the first working day following the onset of the incident.  The report may be made by electronic mail, in person or by telephone.
 Per 567 IAC 24.1(3), a written report of an incident of excess emissions as defined in 567 IAC 20.2 shall be submitted as a follow-up to all required initial reports to the Department within seven (7) days of the onset of the upset condition.
 Operation of this emission unit(s) or control equipment outside of those operating parameters specified in Permit Condition 5 in accordance to the schedule set forth in 567 IAC 24.1.
 Per 567 IAC 25.1(6), the owner or operator of any facility required to install a continuous monitoring system or systems shall provide quarterly reports to the Director, no later than thirty (30) calendar days following the end of the calendar quarter, on forms provided by the Director.
 Per 567 IAC 25.1(7), a written compliance demonstration report for each compliance testing event, whether successful or not, postmarked no later than six (6) weeks after the completion of the test period unless other regulations provide for other notification requirements.  In that case, the more stringent reporting requirement shall be met.

 All data, records, reports, documentation, construction plans, and calculations required under this permit shall be available at the plant during normal business hours for inspection and copying by federal, state, or local air pollution regulatory agencies and their authorized representatives, for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of recording unless otherwise required by another applicable law (i.e. NSPS, NESHAP, etc.)

12.  Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping (Continued)

 Information regarding this permit should be sent to the attention of the following individuals based on the type of information being submitted:  change in ownership (Air Quality Bureau Records Center), permit correspondence (Construction Permit Supervisor), stack testing correspondence (Stack Test Coordinator), and reports and notifications (Compliance Unit Supervisor and DNR Field Office).  The addresses are:

Air Quality Bureau
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
502 East 9th Street
Des Moines, IA  50319
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Washington Field Office #6
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
1023 West Madison Street
Washington, IA 52353
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

13.  Appeal Rights

All conditions within an original permit may be appealed, subject to the appeal rights set forth in 561 IAC Chapter 7.  Amended conditions within a permit amendment may be appealed, subject to the appeal rights set forth in 561 IAC Chapter 7.  In permit amendments, all provisions of the original permit remain in full force and effect unless they are specifically changed by the permit amendment.  The previous, unchanged permit provisions are included in the amendment for your convenience only and are unappealable.

14.  Permit History

                                  Permit No.
                                  Project No.
                                  Description
                                     Date
                                 Stack Testing
                                   93-A-339
                                    93-118
                    Addition of Over-fire Air to Boiler #9
                                  05/18/1993
                                      No
                                  93-A-339-S1
                                    04-596
                             Resolve NAAQS Issues
                                  09/19/2006
                                      No
                                  93-A-339-S2
                                    15-266
          Retire Boilers #7 and #8 and Boiler #9 to Natural Gas Only
                                  10/13/2015
                                      No

                                 END OF PERMIT


October 31, 2012 Update Call  - Oxydemeton-methyl (ODM) registration review
Participants
EPA: Kevin Costello (Branch Chief), Tom Myers (Team leader), Garland Waleko (Chemical review manager)
Gowan: Maria Teresa Guilla, Regulatory Manager
Notes
EPA provided a status update to the ODM registrant, Gowan, on their Low Volume/Minor Use waiver request pertaining to the data requirements in the 2010 DCI for registration review. The waiver will not be granted and the data is required at this time for conducting risk assessment for the registration review of the chemical.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 177 (Friday, September 11, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56196-56198]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18972]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0401, FRL-10012-52-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; ID, Incorporation by Reference Updates and
Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by Idaho on June 5,
2019 and May 27, 2020. The submitted revisions update the incorporation
by reference of specific Federal requirements and clarify source
permitting requirements. The EPA proposes to find that the changes are
consistent with Clean Air Act requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2019-0401, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
electronically submit any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.)
must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all
points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments
or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on
the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional
submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it refers to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of Submissions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general
requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions
regarding approval of those SIPs. Idaho incorporates by reference
various portions of Federal regulations codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) into the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in
Idaho (Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01). Idaho
then submits parts of IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the
Federally approved Idaho SIP (generally those provisions that relate to
the criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the CAA for
which the EPA has promulgated NAAQS or other specific requirements of
section 110).
    To ensure that its rulemakings remain consistent with EPA
requirements, Idaho updates the incorporation by reference citations in
IDAPA 58.01.01 on an annual basis and submits a SIP revision to reflect
any changes made to Federal regulations during that year. Idaho also
makes periodic changes to permitting regulations for clarity or to
improve implementation and submits the changes to the EPA along with
the annual update SIP revision.

II. Evaluation of Submissions

    On June 5, 2019 and May 27, 2020, Idaho submitted SIP revisions to
update the incorporation by reference of Federal regulations. Idaho
also submitted rule changes to clarify permitting requirements. This
evaluation section discusses how the submitted rule revisions differ
from the current Federally approved Idaho SIP and why the EPA believes
the rule changes are approvable.\1\ As such, our discussion focuses on
the most recently submitted change to any particular rule provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA approved a portion of the June 5, 2019 SIP revision
on December 9, 2019 (84 FR 67189). Specifically, we approved IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>0 and Section 4 of Senate Bill 1024, codified at Idaho
Code Section 39-114, state effective April 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Incorporation by Reference

    The Idaho SIP incorporates by reference the following Federal
regulations into the Idaho SIP (IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03.a through .e.):
     National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 40 CFR part 50;
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, with the exception of certain
visibility-related provisions;
     Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 40 CFR
part 52, subparts A and N, and appendices D and E;
     Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods,
40 CFR part 53; and
     Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58.
    The submitted SIP revisions update the incorporation by reference
citation date for these provisions from July 1, 2017 to July 1, 2019.
During this time period, there were no changes to 40 CFR parts 50, 53,
and 58. There were, however, changes to the State-adopted portions of
40 CFR parts 51 and 52, specifically: A change to the Federal
definition of volatile organic compounds; \2\ updates to compliance

test methods for air emissions sources; \3\ additional requirements for
ozone nonattainment areas and the ozone transport region; \4\
corrections and updates to regulations to limit the interstate
transport of nitrogen oxides; \5\ and updates to the Idaho SIP codified
at 40 CFR part 52, subpart N.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of
Volatile Organic Compounds--Exclusion of cis1,1,1,4,4,4-
hexafluorobut-2-ene (HFO-1336mzz-Z), final rule published November
28, 2018 (83 FR 61127).
    \3\ Testing Regulations for Air Emission Sources, final rule
published November 14, 2018 (83 FR 56713).
    \4\ Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan
Requirements final rule published December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62998).
    \5\ Emissions Monitoring Provisions in State Implementation
Plans Required Under the NOX SIP Call, final rule
published March 8, 2019 (84 FR 8422).
    \6\ Idaho SIP codified at 40 CFR part 52, subpart N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the incorporation by reference updates and have
determined that the effect of the updates is to keep the Idaho SIP
consistent with minimum Federal requirements. Therefore, we propose to
approve the submitted incorporation by reference updates.

B. Permit To Construct Program

    The Federally approved Idaho Permit to Construct program is
designed to regulate emissions from new and modified industrial
sources. The submitted revisions align the Idaho SIP pre-construction
permit requirements for sources of radionuclides with the pre-
construction approval requirements in the National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants at 40 CFR part 61. Specifically, Idaho
revised IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> and .222 to make clear that a source must
obtain an Idaho Permit to Construct if that source is required to get
approval to construct under the Federal National Emissions Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for radionuclides, set forth at
40 CFR part 61, subpart H. Exemptions from pre-construction approval
are spelled out in the NESHAP and the redundant exemption language in
the Idaho regulations was removed. Idaho also removed the reference to
radionuclides from the definition of ``Significant'' at IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS>.108 because the NESHAP defines the applicability terms for
the modification of sources of radionuclides.
    The radionuclide provisions in these rule sections were approved
into the Idaho SIP because they serve to identify which sources must
obtain a Permit to Construct. We propose to approve the submitted
changes because they are applicability provisions designed to remove
confusion and improve program implementation. We are approving the
revisions to the Permit to Construct program only to the extent that
the rules apply to (1) pollutants for which NAAQS have been established
(criteria pollutants) and precursors to those criteria pollutants as
determined by the EPA for the applicable geographic area; and (2) any
additional pollutants that are required to be regulated under part C of
title I of the CAA, but only for the purposes of meeting or avoiding
the requirements of part C of title I of the CAA.

C. Non-Title V Operating Permit Program

    The submitted revisions update a requirement in the Idaho Tier II
(non-title V) operating permit program. Specifically, Idaho submitted a
change to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>4.04 to make clear that a permittee must
submit a complete application to the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality for a renewal of the terms and conditions establishing the Tier
II operating permit at least six months before, but no earlier than
eighteen months before, the expiration date of the existing permit. The
submitted revisions are intended to make sure the permit does not
expire before the terms and conditions are renewed. We propose to
approve the changes.

D. Sulfuric Acid Plants

    There are two facilities in Idaho with sulfuric acid plants, namely
Itafos Conda and the JR Simplot Don Plant. Both are subject to the
Federal Standards of Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants set forth at
40 CFR part 60 subpart H (NSPS subpart H). Idaho requested to remove
outdated state emission limits for sulfuric acid plant from the SIP
because the NSPS subpart H limits are more stringent. Idaho compared
the emission limit in NSPS subpart H (4 pounds of sulfur oxides per ton
of acid produced) to the emission limit in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through
.848 (28 pounds of sulfur oxides per ton of acid produced). Idaho
requested to remove the Idaho SIP emission limit because it is less
stringent than the NSPS subpart H limit. Idaho also noted any new
sulfuric acid plant seeking to construct in Idaho would also be subject
to NSPS subpart H and therefore the requirements in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5
through .848 are unnecessary.
    We have reviewed Idaho's request and agree that the emission limit
in the NSPS subpart H is more stringent than the emission limit in the
Idaho SIP and that the NSPS subpart H applies to existing and new
sources in Idaho. Therefore, we propose to approve the State's request
to remove IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through .848 from the Idaho SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference
revisions to the Idaho SIP submitted on June 5, 2019, and May 27, 2020.
Upon final approval, the Idaho SIP will include the following
regulations:
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.108, definition of ``Significant''
(State effective 4/11/2019);
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, Incorporation by Reference, except
section 107.03.f through 107.03.p (State effective 3/30/2020);
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, Category I Exemption (State effective
4/11/2019);
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>, Category II Exemption (State effective
4/11/2019); and
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>4, Procedure for Issuing Permits (State
effective 4/11/2019).
    The EPA is also proposing to approve Idaho's request to remove the
following regulations from the Idaho SIP:
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5, Rules for Control of Sulfur Oxide
Emissions from Sulfuric Acid Plants (State effective 5/1/1994);
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>6, Emission Limits (State effective 4/5/
2000);
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>7, Monitoring and Testing (State
effective 5/1/1994); and
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>8, Compliance Schedule (State effective
4/5/2000).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described in Section III of this preamble.
Also, in this document, the EPA is proposing to remove, in a final EPA
rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
remove the incorporation by reference of IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>5 through
.848 as described in Section III of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

V. 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 Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of the requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area in Idaho where the EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those
areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 24, 2020.
Christopher Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2020-18972 Filed 9-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61477-61478]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Volkswagen

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Volkswagen Group of America's
(VW) petition for exemption of the Audi A4 allroad vehicle line in
accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from
the Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted, because the
agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA,1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, W43-439, Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is (202)
493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated August 8, 2011, VW
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard(49 CFR part 541) for the Audi A4 allroad vehicle
line beginning with MY 2013. The petition requested an exemption from
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device
as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, VW
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design and
location of the components of the antitheft device for its new Audi A4
allroad vehicle line. VW will install its passive, transponder-based
electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on
its Audi A4 allroad vehicle line. VW stated that its antitheft device
is an electronic engine immobilizer which utilizes a transponder
ignition key and an alarm system. Key components of the antitheft
device will include a passive electronic engine immobilizer, electronic
ignition lock, adapted ignition key, engine control unit, electronic
steering column lock and an automatic transmission gear box (if
available). VW stated that its vehicle line will also include an
antitheft alarm system as standard equipment. Specifically, VW stated
that when the vehicle is locked, the alarm system monitors and protects
the engine compartment, luggage compartment and doors, and when the
system is activated, the alarm will trigger if one of the doors, the
engine hood or the rear hatch lid are opened. Specifically, VW stated
that when any of the protected components within its vehicle enclosure
deterrent system are violated, an audible horn signal is emitted and
the vehicle's emergency flasher system is activated. VW's submission is
considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it
meets the general requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the
specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    VW stated that activation occurs when the key fob advanced key
system is removed from the car, or when the mechanical ignition key is
switched to the OFF position causing lock out of the engine control
unit. VW also stated that deactivation of the antitheft system occurs
when the mechanical ignition key is switched to the ON position or
while the key fob advanced key is located inside the car. VW stated
that the key transponder sends a fixed code to the immobilizer control
unit, and if the code is identified as the correct code, a variable
code is generated in the immobilizer control unit and sent to the
transponder. VW further stated that after the electronic steering
column is unlocked and there is full authorization for the ignition
switch to be on, the engine control unit sends a variable code to the
immobilizer control unit, enabling start up of the vehicle. VW believes
that the code is undecipherable because a new variable code is
generated each time during this secret computing process.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, VW
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the

device, VW stated that it certifies that its antitheft device for the
Audi A4 allroad has been tested for compliance to the corporate
requirements for electrical and electronic assemblies in motor vehicles
related to performance. VW provided a detailed list of the tests
conducted (i.e., electrical system temperature stability, mechanical
integrity, electrical performance, EMC, environmental compatibility and
service life) and believes that the device is reliable and durable
since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test.
Furthermore, VW stated that after the electronic module is recognized
by the key transponder, a pairing between the key and the immobilizer
occurs at which point the key can no longer be used for any other
immobilizer.
    VW stated that the Audi A4 allroad will be a new, small
multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) line based on the Audi A4 sedan.
The Audi A4 allroad has no theft rate history or data available.
However, VW provided data on the theft reduction benefits experienced
by other vehicle lines installed with immobilizer devices that have
already been granted petitions for exemptions by the agency.
    VW compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. VW stated that
except for the 2004 MY, the Audi allroad MPV had a lower theft rate
than its passenger car counterpart, Audi A6. Specifically, the agency's
data show that theft rates for the Audi A6 for MYs 2006-2008 are
1.8143, 1.5437 and 1.4414 respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs' data
(2006-2008), the theft rate for the Audi A6 is well below the median at
1.5998. VW also stated that the theft rates for the Audi A4 have been
near the median and based on comparison, the Audi A4 allroad is
expected to have a lower theft rate. Specifically, the agency's data
show that theft rates for the Audi A4 for MYs' 2006-2008 are 1.0203,
1.2892 and 1.1463 respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs' data (2006-
2008), the theft rate for the Audi A4 vehicle line is well below the
median at 1.1520. VW also provided data from NICB in support of the
effectiveness of immobilizer-installed vehicles to reduce thefts. VW
stated that according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB)
theft statistics, MY 1997 Ford Mustangs installed with a standard
immobilizer showed a 70% reduction in theft rate when compared to MY
1995 Ford Mustangs without an immobilizer.
    Based on the evidence submitted by VW, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Audi A4 allroad vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
standard (49 CFR part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that VW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the VW Audi A4 allroad vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
VW provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter
or move a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full VW's
petition for exemption for the VW Audi A4 allroad vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49
CFR Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If VW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if VW wishes in the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: September 28, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-25541 Filed 10-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P