[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68486-68490]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28276]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0673; FRL-9936-69-Region 9]

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions,
Clark County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to the Clark
County portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of sulfur
(SOX), and particulate matter (PM) emissions. We are
proposing action on rescissions of local rules that regulate these
pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0673, 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: Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. If you need to include CBI as part
of your comment, please visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html
for further instructions. 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. For the full EPA public comment policy and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov or 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: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3073<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. Which rules has the county rescinded?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
    B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. Which rules has the county rescinded?

    On November 20, 2014, the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP revision that includes amendments to
two local rules adopted by the Clark County Board of County
Commissioners (``Clark County'') and rescissions of four local Clark
County rules.\1\ In this action, we are proposing action on the
rescissions. The EPA will take action on the rule amendments in a
separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under state law, NDEP is the Governor's designee for
maintaining the Nevada SIP. NDEP is also the agency responsible for
air quality planning and permitting within the entire state except
for Clark County and Washoe County. In Clark County, air quality
planning and permitting jurisdiction, with certain exceptions, lies
with the Clark County Board of County Commissioners, which acts
through the county's Department of Air Quality (DAQ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes to
approve, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the
EPA's date and citation of approval.

                            Table 1--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Rule section of the Clark
 County Air Quality Regulations        Title         Local effective   SIP approval date        FR Citation
            (CCAQR)                                        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 29.....................  Sulfur Contents    December 29, 1978  August 27, 1981..  46 FR 43141.
                                  of Fuel Oil.
Section 30, subsections 30.1-    Incinerators.....  December 29, 1978  August 27, 1981..  46 FR 43141.
 30.7 (excluding subsection
 30.4).
Section 30, subsection 30.4....  [exemptions for    September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  certain types of
                                  incinerators].
Section 30, subsection 30.8....  [related to        September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  maximum
                                  allowable
                                  emission rates].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 lists the rule rescissions that the EPA herein proposes
disapprove, with the date the rule was first locally effective and the
EPA's date and citation of approval.

                          Table 2--Submitted Rule Rescissions Proposed for Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Local effective
  Rule section of the (CCAQR)          Title               date        SIP approval date        FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 52, subsections 52.1-    Handling of        December 28, 1978  April 14, 1981...  46 FR 21758.
 52.10 (excluding subsections     Gasoline at
 <IP_ADDRESS> and 52.7.2).            Service
                                  Stations,
                                  Airports and
                                  Storage Tanks.
Section 52, subsections          [related to vapor  September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
 <IP_ADDRESS> and 52.7.2.             recovery and
                                  sales
                                  information].
Section 60 (excluding            Evaporation and    June 28, 1979....  April 14, 1981...  46 FR 21758.
 subsections 60.4.2-60.4.3).      Leakage.
Section 60, subsection 60.4.2..  [General           September 3, 1981  March 20, 1984...  49 FR 10259.
                                  prohibition on
                                  the use of
                                  cutback asphalt].
Section 60, subsection 60.4.3..  [Exceptions to     September 3, 1981  June 18, 1982....  47 FR 26386.
                                  subsection
                                  60.4.2].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 20, 2015, the submittal for Clark County was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    This rule rescissions include four sections of the Clark County
portion of the Nevada SIP, Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60. Previously,
NDEP submitted, and the EPA approved into the SIP, various subsections
of these rules separately. As a result, the SIP elements concerning
each of these Clark County Air Quality Regulations (CCAQR) rules
consist of several subsections as identified in Tables 1 and 2.\2\
These sections were repealed locally on April 5, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to CCAQR Sections
in this document are to those sections in their entirety.
    \3\ The SIP approved versions of CCAQR sections 29, 30, 52, and
60 rules were all approved into the SIP prior to 1985. The County
has since updated the locally effective rules several times. Clark
County's most recently adopted local rules differed substantially
from the SIP-approved versions. The most recently adopted local
versions were the subject of the county's local repeal action.
However, we understand that the intent of the county and NDEP in
submitting the repeal of these later-adopted (not SIP-approved)
versions of the rules is to remove the SIP-approved versions of the
rules from the Clark County portion of the Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the SIP-approved rules?

    Clark County adopted a number of rules to meet CAA national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) nonattainment requirements in the late
1970s and 1980s, and submitted many of these for incorporation into the
Nevada SIP. The rules that were approved into the SIP included CCAQR
Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60.
    Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 establish limits and control measures
to reduce emissions of SOX, PM, and VOCs from the combustion
of fuels (Section 29), incinerators (Section 30), gasoline dispensing
facilities (Section 52) and other processes and industries that use
solvents, degreasing, surface coating, and cutback asphalt (Section
60).
    Clark County began a process to revise the CCAQR in May 2005. In
part, Clark County was concerned with regulatory conflict resulting
from the delegation of authority or the local incorporation by
reference of federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for
many source categories covered under existing local rules. As a result,
Clark County repealed Sections 29, 30, 52, and 60 on April 5, 2011.
    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) associated with today's
proposal has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?

    Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant
CAA criteria for stringency, if any, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements
in effect before November 15, 1990.
    Stringency: Generally, rules must be protective of the NAAQS, and
must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in
nonattainment areas for ozone and Reasonably Available Control Methods
(RACM), including RACT, for PM nonattainment areas. Clark County is
currently designated as a maintenance area for the revoked 1997 ozone
standard, and as attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. (40 CFR
81.329). Clark County regulates a PM10 maintenance area for
the 1987 standard and is currently designated as attainment for the
2010 SO2 standard. (40 CFR 81.329). Therefore, these rules
are not currently subject to CAA RACT, RACM, or analogous stringency
standards.
    Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA section
110(l). We note that, despite its current ozone NAAQS attainment
designations, air quality monitoring data from 2012-2014 suggest that
ozone concentrations within Clark County no longer meet the 2008 ozone
standard, so SIP changes that would allow an increase in ozone
precursor emissions (such VOC emissions) may not be protective of the
NAAQS.
    Section 29 limited the sulfur content of fuel oils in order to
reduce SOX emissions, a precursor for PM. Section 30
regulated the operation of incinerators, and limited the emissions of
PM. Section 52 regulated the operation of gasoline dispensing
facilities, and limited the emissions of VOCs. Section 60 regulated the
use, storage, and disposal of solvents in large scale degreasing and
coating operations, and for cutback asphalt. Therefore, consistent with
CAA section 110(l) requirements, Clark County must demonstrate that the
rescission of Sections 29, 30, 52 and 60 would not interfere with
attainment and reasonable further progress of the NAAQS or any other
applicable CAA requirement.
    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification
of any rule adopted before November 15, 1990 in areas designated as
nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutant.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate these
requirements include the following:
    1. ``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); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.

B. Do the rule rescissions meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 are appropriate for
rescission. Clark County is currently designated as attainment or
maintenance for each of the NAAQS. As a result, Clark County rules are
not required to meet RACT or analogous standards, and are subject to
the general savings clause in CAA section 193. Clark County also
documented that these two rescissions should not increase emissions of
ozone precursors, and that any additional emissions would not interfere
with the maintenance of applicable NAAQS for SO2 and PM.
This satisfies the requirements on plan revisions.
    However, CCAQR Sections 52 and 60 are not appropriate for
rescission as summarized below and described in more detail in our TSD.

C. What are the deficiencies?

    Clark County has not demonstrated that rescinding CCAQR Sections 52
and 60 would satisfy the requirements of CAA section 110(l).
Specifically, we propose to disapprove the rescissions of

sections 52 and 60 based on the following concerns:
    1. The rescission of Section 52 from the SIP would allow an
increase in VOC emissions, as any other applicable Federal or State
rules or standards would not apply to the same breadth of sources as
the SIP-approved rule. This would constitute a relaxation of the SIP
and would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    2. The rescission of Section 60 would allow an increase in VOC
emissions. Subsection 60.4 prohibits the use of cutback asphalt in
summer months, with certain exceptions, which is not prohibited by any
other Federal or State rules that would apply absent subsection 60.4.
Removing this prohibition would constitute a relaxation of the SIP and
would not be protective of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

 D. Federal and Local Enforcement of Rules

    While Clark County is no longer enforcing these rules, Clark County
Sections 52 and 60 would remain federally enforceable as part of the
applicable SIP if the EPA were to finalize today's proposed disapproval
of the rescissions of these two rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a
partial approval and partial disapproval of the Clark County rule
rescissions submitted by NDEP on November 20, 2014. We are proposing to
approve the rescissions of CCAQR Sections 29 and 30 and to disapprove
the rescissions of Sections 52 and 60. Final approval of the
rescissions of Clark County Sections 29 and 30 would remove the rules
from the Nevada SIP. Final disapproval of the rescissions of Clark
County Sections 52 and 60 would retain both rules in the Nevada SIP.
    Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be
imposed should the EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not
be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the SIP submittal that we
are partially disapproving is not a required SIP submittal. Similarly,
EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA section
110(c)(1) because the partial disapproval of the SIP revision retains
existing SIP rules and does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the
area that a FIP must correct.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will
not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but
simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain State
requirements from the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP approval and disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain
State requirements from the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity
for the EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of
the rule. The fact that the Clean Air Act prescribes that various
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from
this disapproval does not mean that the EPA either can or must conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' The EPA has determined that the proposed approval and
disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
action proposes to approve and disapprove the removal of pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires the EPA develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves and
disapproves the removal of certain State requirements from the SIP and
does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
revisions that the EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove would not
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and
the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This proposed SIP revision under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations but simply approves and disapproves the removal of certain
State requirements from the SIP.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order (E.O). 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 19, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-28276 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37099-37101]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16194]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0004; FRL-9997-38-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Updates to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Chattanooga

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to approve a revision to the Chattanooga portion of the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), provided by the State of
Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation from Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control
Bureau by a letter dated September 12, 2018. The revision updates the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the Chattanooga
portion of the Tennessee SIP. The amendments in the Tennessee SIP
reflect recent revisions made to the federal NAAQS. EPA is approving
the changes because they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective August 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0004. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air and Radiation Division (formerly the Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Adams of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9009. Mr. Adams can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review,
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS to protect public health and
welfare for six criteria pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM)
(including fine particulate matter, or PM2.5), carbon
monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. The CAA requires
periodic review of the air quality criteria, the science upon which the
standards are based, and the standards themselves. EPA's regulatory
provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR 50, National
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Chattanooga
portion of the Tennessee SIP that were provided to EPA through a letter
dated September 12, 2018.\1\ EPA is finalizing approval of the portions
of this SIP revision that make changes to air quality rules in Part II,
Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-41.\2\ The September 12, 2018, SIP
revision makes changes to the SIP that deletes the current version and
substitutes a revised version of Part II, Chapter 4, Article II,
Section 4-41, Rule 21 of the Chattanooga City Code ``Ambient Air
Quality Standards.'' Hamilton County revised its rule to be consistent
with changes to the federal NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA notes that the Agency received the SIP revision on
September 18, 2018.
    \2\ As discussed in the NPRM, EPA does not recognize gaseous
fluorides as criteria pollutants and EPA is not acting to approve
the standard related to gaseous fluorides. See 84 FR 11917, n.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 29,
2019 (84 FR 11917), EPA proposed to approve the aforementioned changes
to Part II, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-41 in the Chattanooga
portion of the Tennessee SIP, which address the NAAQS. The NPRM
provides additional details regarding EPA's action. Comments on the
NPRM were due on or before April 29, 2019.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one potentially adverse comment on its March 29, 2019,
NPRM. This comment is provided in the docket for today's final action.
EPA has summarized and responded to the comment below.
    Comment: The Commenter notes that ``high levels of ground level
ozone, airborne particles and other matter'' pose a threat to human
health, ``making this proposal a public concern.'' The Commenter also
states that any changes to the SIP ``must consider any changes in
location of monitoring sites, protocol of air quality monitoring and
quality standards sample so that there is no heteroskedasticity which
could lead to corruption of time measure data.'' According to the
Commenter, if any of these changes have been made, ``further scrutiny
should be made concerning the motive or whether data has been skewed in
favor of noncompliance.'' The Commenter further states that it is
``important that careful consideration and verification be given to
this proposed revision.''

    Response: It is unclear how the commenter would like EPA to change
the proposed rule. To the extent the commenter is concerned about the
health effects of air pollution, EPA notes that final approval of this
SIP revision will incorporate more protective NAAQS into the
Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP. To the extent the commenter
is concerned about air quality monitoring, these concerns are outside
of the scope of this rulemaking, which updates Tennessee's SIP solely
to reflect the current NAAQS. Tennessee's SIP revision does not change
the location of any monitoring sites or any air quality monitoring
plans. EPA further notes that it has carefully evaluated the SIP
revision and is approving it for the reasons discussed in this notice
and the NPRM.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of changes to
the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP at Part II, Chapter 4,
Article II, Section 4-41, Rule 21, state effective January 23, 2017.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore,
these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve changes to Part II, Chapter
4, Article II, Section 4-41, Rule 21, of the Chattanooga portion of the
Tennessee SIP because the changes are consistent with section 110 of
the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2019. 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. 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,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds, Lead, Carbon Monoxide.

    Dated: July 18, 2019.
 Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR-Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(c), Table 4, is amended under Article II. Section 4-
41 Rules, Regulations, Criteria, Standards by revising the entry for
``Section 4-41 Rule 21'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  Table 4--EPA-Approved Chattanooga Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State section              Title/subject     Adoption date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Article II. Section 4-41 Rules, Regulations, Criteria, Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4-41 Rule 21...........  Ambient Air                1/23/17  7/31/2019, [Insert  With the exception of
                                  Quality Standards.                  citation of         the portions related
                                                                      publication].       to the standard for
                                                                                gaseous fluorides,
                                                                                which are not approved
                                                                                into the SIP.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-16194 Filed 7-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Propionic Acid (077702)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: September 27, 2007

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging by year,
averaging across all years, & then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated
value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated
values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.
Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant
digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2006.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2006.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) – fungicide and herbicide
usage data from NPUD 02 of the CropLife Foundation are used only if data
are not available from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

September 27, 2007

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of propionic acid
(077702)

Sorted Alphabetically

	   Crop					Lbs. A. I.			Percent Crop Ttd.

										Avg		Max

	1 	Almonds *1	3,000				N/C		N/C

	2 	Artichokes *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	3 	Brussels Sprouts *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	4 	Chicory *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	5 	Figs *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	6 	Kiwifruit *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	7 	Nectarines *1	1,000				N/C		N/C

	8 	Olives *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	9 	Pistachios *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	10	Pomegranates *1	<500				N/C		N/C

	11	Prunes & Plums *1	1,000				N/C		N/C

All numbers rounded.

'<500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

'<2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

'<1'	indicates less than 1	percent of crop is treated.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2001 to 2006);

	Private Pesticide Market Research (2001 to 2006)

	NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation and

       California DPR data.

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.

1 These crops were not listed on active product registrations when this
report was run.

2 CA data only

* CA data only, but 95% or more of U.S. acres are in California

N/C = Not Calculated

Last revised on 09/19/2007


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49935-49936]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0008]

Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to
Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Draft
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Citizen
Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' This draft guidance revises
the guidance for industry entitled ``Citizen Petitions and Petitions
for Stay of Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act'' issued in November 2014. This draft guidance updates
the November 2014 guidance to account for recent regulatory changes and
describes a change in FDA's current thinking on what constitutes a
505(q) petition. In addition, FDA is revising this guidance to describe
some of the considerations FDA will take into account in determining
whether a petition is submitted with the primary purpose of delaying
the approval of an application.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by December 3, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2009-D-0008 for ``Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of
Action Subject to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Thomas, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6220, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject
to Section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' This
draft guidance provides information regarding FDA's current thinking on
implementing section 505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(q)). Section 505(q) of the FD&C Act governs
certain citizen petitions and petitions for stay of Agency action that
request that FDA take any form of action related to a pending
application submitted under: (1) Section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act
(referred to in this document as a 505(b)(2) application), (2) 505(j)
of the FD&C Act (referred to in this document as an abbreviated new
drug application or ANDA), or (3) a pending application for licensure
of a biological product as biosimilar or interchangeable that is
submitted under section 351(k) of the Public Health

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k), referred to in this document as a 351(k)
application).
    This draft guidance describes how the Agency determines if: (1) The
provisions of section 505(q) of the FD&C Act addressing the treatment
of citizen petitions and petitions for stay of Agency action
(collectively, petitions) apply to a particular petition and (2) a
petition would delay approval of a pending ANDA, 505(b)(2) application,
or 351(k) application. This draft guidance also describes how FDA
implements the provisions of section 505(q) requiring that: (1) A
petition include a certification and (2) supplemental information or
comments to a petition include a verification. It also addresses the
relationship between the review of petitions and pending ANDAs,
505(b)(2) applications, and 351(k) applications for which the Agency
has not yet made a decision on approvability.
    This draft guidance revises the guidance for industry entitled
``Citizen Petitions and Petitions for Stay of Action Subject to Section
505(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act'' issued in November
2014. This draft guidance updates the November 2014 guidance to account
for recent regulatory changes to add Sec.  10.31 (21 CFR 10.31) to
FDA's regulations and modify 21 CFR 10.30 and 10.35. The revision also
describes a change in FDA's current thinking on what constitutes a
505(q) petition. In addition, FDA is revising this guidance to describe
some of the considerations FDA will take into account in determining
whether a petition is submitted with the primary purpose of delaying
the approval of an application under section 505(q)(1)(E) of the FD&C
Act.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on citizen
petitions and petitions for stay of action subject to section 505(q) of
the FD&C Act. It does not establish any rights for any person and is
not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach
if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The collections of information in 21 CFR 10.20, 10.30, and 10.35 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0191; the collections of
information in Sec.  10.31 have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0679; and the collections of information in 21 CFR 314.54, 314.94,
and 314.102 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The
certification and verification statements required under Sec.  10.31(c)
and (d) are ``public disclosure[s] of information originally supplied
by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of
disclosure to the public . . .'' (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)) and therefore not
subject to OMB review under the PRA.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 28, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-21532 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES February 8, 2006 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Methyl Bromide: Tolerance Revocation of Inorganic Bromides. PC Code: 053201, DP Barcode: D304618.

FROM: Toiya Goodlow, Chemist Reregistration Branch 1 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THROUGH: Michael Metzger, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch I Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Steven Weiss, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

The Health Effects Division has received a request from the Special Review and Reregistration Division to clarify its determination to classify methyl bromide as a nonfood use pesticide with regard to its soil fumigant uses, to establish tolerances based only on the parent compound for commodity fumigation uses, and to revoke tolerances for inorganic bromide.

Although methyl bromide is used as an agricultural pesticide, it is considered a non food use chemical for soil fumigation uses since it is quickly degraded or metabolized in the soil, and subsequently incorporated into natural plant constituents. Residues of the parent compound are not likely to be found in foods as a result of prior treatment of fields. While residues of inorganic bromide may be present, these residues are indistinguishable from background because of inorganic bromide's ubiquity in the environment. Therefore, tolerances are not required for soil fumigant uses of methyl bromide, and tolerances currently established for residues of inorganic bromide resulting from methyl bromide soil fumigation ( 40 CFR 180.199) should be revoked. Page of 2 2 For commodity fumigation uses, residues of both parent methyl bromide and inorganic bromide may be present. Establishment of tolerances for methyl bromide, per se, allows for adequate regulation of the chemical since residues of the parent are frequently found at levels above the limits of quantification. HED recommends against maintaining current tolerances for inorganic bromide ( 40 CFR 180.123) because identifying bromidefree analytical control samples may not be possible because of bromide's ubiquity, at significant levels, in the environment; these tolerances should be revoked and replaced with tolerances for methyl bromide, per se, as described in the review by Christine Olinger ( D271583, 2/ 22/ 02). HED does not consider inorganic bromide to be of risk concern at the levels expected in foods and feeds.

7509C: RRB1: TGoodlow: CM# 2: Rm 722H: 308 0070: 2/ 8/ 06 MMetzger: 2/ 8/ 06


                                                                                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                                                     OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION                                  NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY                                                           2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE                                                       ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

May 17, 2023

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Appendix B to Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis FROM: Evan Murray TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0985

This memo contains Appendix B to Chapter 4 of Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (DRIA), also referred to at times as Appendix 4.B. This appendix includes the heavy-duty (HD) zero emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption rates modeled in MOVES for the reference case and control cases.

The derivation of reference case HD ZEV adoption is discussed in the DRIA Chapter 4.3.1 and the derivation of HD ZEV adoption for the control cases is discussed in the DRIA Chapter 4.3.2.

Appendix B to Chapter 4  -  BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative

Table 4B-1 Source type 41 (transit bus) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42 2027 0.033914793 0 0.55 0 0.224 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.55 0 0.273846154 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.55 0 0.315384615 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.55 0 0.356923077 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.55 0 0.398461538 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.55 0 0.44 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.55 0 0.44 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.55 0 0.44 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.55 0 0.44 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.55 0 0.44 0 46 2027 0.033914793 0 0.18 0 0.126 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.208333333 0 0.161538462 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.236666667 0 0.191153846 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.265 0 0.220769231 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.293333333 0 0.250384615 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.35 0 0.28 0 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.051268533 0 0.051268533 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.071000336 0 0.071000336 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.09073214 0.29426786 0.09073214 0.23926786

2031 0.10456148 0 0.10456148 0.33543852 0.10456148 0.28043852

2032 0.114427381 0 0.114427381 0.435572619 0.114427381 0.325572619

2033 0.124293283 0 0.124293283 0.425706717 0.124293283 0.315706717

2034 0.134159184 0 0.134159184 0.415840816 0.134159184 0.305840816

2035 0.144025086 0 0.144025086 0.405974914 0.144025086 0.295974914

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.147988524 0.402011476 0.147988524 0.292011476

Table 4B-2 Source type 42 (other bus) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42 2027 0.033914793 0 0.32 0 0.224 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.341666667 0 0.255384615 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.363333333 0 0.281538462 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.385 0 0.307692308 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.406666667 0 0.333846154 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.45 0 0.36 0 46 2027 0.033914793 0 0.06 0 0.042 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.069444444 0 0.053846154 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.078888889 0 0.071000336 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.09073214 0 0.09073214 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.10456148 0 0.10456148 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.116666667 0 0.114427381 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.124293283 0 0.124293283 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.134159184 0 0.134159184 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.144025086 0 0.144025086 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.147988524 0 0.147988524 0 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.058333333 0 0.064615385 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.116666667 0 0.118461538 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.175 0 0.172307692 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.233333333 0 0.226153846 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.35 0 0.28 0 48 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.058333333 0 0.064615385 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.116666667 0 0.118461538 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.175 0 0.172307692 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.233333333 0 0.226153846 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

Table 4B-3 Source type 43 (school bus) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42 2027 0.033914793 0 0.18 0 0.126 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.233333333 0 0.189230769 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.286666667 0 0.241923077 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.34 0 0.294615385 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.393333333 0 0.347307692 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.5 0 0.4 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.5 0 0.4 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.5 0 0.4 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.5 0 0.4 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.5 0 0.4 0 46 2027 0.033914793 0 0.32 0 0.224 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.341666667 0 0.255384615 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.363333333 0 0.281538462 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.385 0 0.307692308 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.406666667 0 0.333846154 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.45 0 0.36 0 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.126 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.075 0 0.18 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.15 0 0.225 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.225 0 0.27 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.3 0 0.315 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

Table 4B-4 Source type 51 (refuse truck) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42, 46 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.075 0 0.083076923 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.15 0 0.152307692 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.225 0 0.221538462 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.3 0 0.290769231 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.45 0 0.36 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.45 0 0.36 0 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.18 0 0.126 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.208333333 0 0.161538462 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.236666667 0 0.191153846 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.265 0 0.220769231 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.293333333 0 0.250384615 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.35 0 0.28 0

Table 4B-5 Source type 52 (single unit short-haul truck) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42 2027 0.033914793 0 0.186995001 0 0.130896501 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.264373661 0 0.220923516 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.341752321 0 0.295946029 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.419130981 0 0.370968542 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.496509641 0 0.445991055 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.65126696 0 0.521013568 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.65126696 0 0.521013568 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.65126696 0 0.521013568 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.65126696 0 0.521013568 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.65126696 0 0.521013568 0 46 2027 0.033914793 0 0.171007569 0 0.119705298 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.20470739 0 0.160980659 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.238407211 0 0.195376794 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.272107033 0 0.229772928 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.305806854 0 0.264169063 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.373206497 0 0.298565197 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.373206497 0 0.298565197 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.373206497 0 0.298565197 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.373206497 0 0.298565197 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.373206497 0 0.298565197 0 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.203825406 0 0.142677784 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.221466386 0 0.166922225 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.239107367 0 0.187125927 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.256748347 0.022615821 0.207329628 0.01938499

2031 0.10456148 0 0.274389327 0.025846653 0.227533329 0.022615821

2032 0.114427381 0 0.309671288 0.032308316 0.247737031 0.025846653

2033 0.124293283 0 0.309671288 0.032308316 0.247737031 0.025846653

2034 0.134159184 0 0.309671288 0.032308316 0.247737031 0.025846653

2035 0.144025086 0 0.309671288 0.032308316 0.247737031 0.025846653

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.309671288 0.032308316 0.247737031 0.025846653

Table 4B-6 Source type 53 (single unit long-haul truck) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42 2027 0 0.033914793 0.146085207 0.033914793 0.092085207 0.033914793

2028 0 0.051268533 0.173731467 0.051268533 0.128731467 0.051268533

2029 0 0.071000336 0.198999664 0.071000336 0.153999664 0.071000336

2030 0 0.09073214 0.22426786 0.09073214 0.17926786 0.09073214

2031 0 0.10456148 0.25543852 0.10456148 0.21043852 0.10456148

2032 0 0.114427381 0.335572619 0.114427381 0.245572619 0.114427381

2033 0 0.124293283 0.325706717 0.124293283 0.235706717 0.124293283

2034 0 0.134159184 0.315840816 0.134159184 0.225840816 0.134159184

2035 0 0.144025086 0.305974914 0.144025086 0.215974914 0.144025086

2036+ 0 0.147988524 0.302011476 0.147988524 0.212011476 0.147988524 46 2027 0 0.033914793 0.096085207 0.033914793 0.057085207 0.033914793

2028 0 0.051268533 0.098731467 0.051268533 0.064885313 0.051268533

2029 0 0.071000336 0.098999664 0.071000336 0.066115048 0.071000336

2030 0 0.09073214 0.09926786 0.09073214 0.067344783 0.09073214

2031 0 0.10456148 0.10543852 0.10456148 0.074476982 0.10456148

2032 0 0.114427381 0.135572619 0.114427381 0.085572619 0.114427381

2033 0 0.124293283 0.125706717 0.124293283 0.075706717 0.124293283

2034 0 0.134159184 0.115840816 0.134159184 0.065840816 0.134159184

2035 0 0.144025086 0.105974914 0.144025086 0.055974914 0.144025086

2036+ 0 0.147988524 0.102011476 0.147988524 0.052011476 0.147988524 47 2027 0 0.033914793 0.096085207 0.033914793 0.057085207 0.033914793

2028 0 0.051268533 0.115398134 0.051268533 0.083346851 0.051268533

2029 0 0.071000336 0.132332997 0.071000336 0.099961202 0.071000336

2030 0 0.09073214 0.14926786 0.09073214 0.116575553 0.09073214

2031 0 0.10456148 0.172105187 0.10456148 0.139092367 0.10456148

2032 0 0.114427381 0.235572619 0.114427381 0.165572619 0.114427381

2033 0 0.124293283 0.225706717 0.124293283 0.155706717 0.124293283

2034 0 0.134159184 0.215840816 0.134159184 0.145840816 0.134159184

2035 0 0.144025086 0.205974914 0.144025086 0.135974914 0.144025086

2036+ 0 0.147988524 0.202011476 0.147988524 0.132011476 0.147988524

Table 4B-7 Source type 54 (motor home) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 42, 46, 47 2027 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0 0.033914793 0

2028 0.051268533 0 0.051268533 0 0.051268533 0

2029 0.071000336 0 0.071000336 0 0.071000336 0

2030 0.09073214 0 0.09073214 0 0.09073214 0

2031 0.10456148 0 0.10456148 0 0.10456148 0

2032 0.114427381 0 0.114427381 0 0.114427381 0

2033 0.124293283 0 0.124293283 0 0.124293283 0

2034 0.134159184 0 0.134159184 0 0.134159184 0

2035 0.144025086 0 0.144025086 0 0.144025086 0

2036+ 0.147988524 0 0.147988524 0 0.147988524 0

Table 4B-8 Source type 61 (combination short-haul truck) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 46 2027 0.01412673 0 0.09 0 0.045 0

2028 0.019465556 0 0.11650661 0 0.081063766 0

2029 0.024804382 0 0.156266525 0 0.105106276 0

2030 0.030143207 0 0.166677683 0.032844488 0.114713708 0.032738095

2031 0.035482033 0 0.177088842 0.104655512 0.12432114 0.06547619

2032 0.040820859 0 0.1875 0.1375 0.133928571 0.098214286

2033+ 0.042710605 0 0.1875 0.1375 0.133928571 0.098214286 47 2027 0.01412673 0 0.097480744 0 0.048740372 0

2028 0.019465556 0 0.115244897 0 0.07613916 0

2029 0.024804382 0 0.141891127 0 0.094405018 0

2030 0.030143207 0 0.148868459 0.045776455 0.101704089 0.045628172

2031 0.035482033 0 0.155845791 0.145861866 0.10900316 0.091256344

2032 0.040820859 0 0.162823123 0.191638322 0.11630223 0.136884515

2033+ 0.042710605 0 0.162823123 0.191638322 0.11630223 0.136884515

Table 4B-9 Source type 62 (combination long-haul truck) BEV and FCEV adoption rates for proposal and alternative Regulatory Class Model Year Reference Proposal Alternative

BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption BEV Adoption FCEV Adoption 46, 47 2027 0 0.01412673 0 0.01412673 0 0.01412673

2028 0 0.019465556 0 0.019465556 0 0.019465556

2029 0 0.024804382 0 0.024804382 0 0.024804382

2030 0 0.030143207 0 0.1 0 0.1

2031 0 0.035482033 0 0.2 0 0.15

2032 0 0.040820859 0 0.25 0 0.2

2033+ 0 0.042710605 0 0.25 0 0.2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23806]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-103-000]

Southcross CCNG Transmission Ltd.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 19, 2011, Southcross CCNG Transmission
Ltd. filed a revised Statement of Operating Conditions with a proposed
effective date of April 19, 2011.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 2, 2011.

    Dated: April 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10259 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15786]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4046-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Connecticut; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Connecticut (FEMA-4046-DR), dated November 17, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 29, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Stephen M. DeBlasio Sr.,
as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-6358 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 47318]
[DOCID:fr05au10-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Regulation C; OMB Control No. 3235-0074; SEC File No. 270-68.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management Budget
for extension and approval.
    Regulation C (17 CFR 230.400 through 230.498) provides standard
instructions to guide persons when filing registration statements under
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information
collected is intended to ensure the adequacy of information available
to investors in the registration of securities. Regulation C is
assigned one burden hour for administrative convenience because the
regulation simply prescribes the disclosure that must appear in other
filings under the Federal securities laws.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 30, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19267 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: January 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 2)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 201-202]
[DOCID:fr05ja09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 11

[Docket No. FAA-199-6622; Amendment No. 11-55]
RIN 2120-AG95

Clarification for Submitting Petitions for Rulemaking or
Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is making minor
technical changes to the requirements for submitting a petition for
rulemaking or exemption. In a final rule published in the Federal
Register on December 5, 2007, the FAA inadvertently did not make
conforming amendments to plain language requirements in the structure
and content of the final rule. This technical amendment restructures or
reorders the filing of petitions and incorporates a reference for
additional filing guidance and instructions using the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS). These changes ensure general rulemaking
procedures are clear, written in plain language, and better inform the
public of administrative practices.

DATES: Effective Dates: This rule is effective January 5, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Holiday, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-202, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); facsimile: (202-267-
5075); e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2007 (72 FR 68474) a document that amended the regulations
for submitting petitions for rulemaking or exemption. This technical
amendment--
    (1) Incorporates a reference to available guidance and instructions
that may ease the use of FDMS. This guidance is accessible via the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, and additional instructions for
petitions for rulemaking or exemption are also accessible via the
Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations.
    (2) Amends 14 CFR 11.63(a) and (b) by reordering these paragraphs
by order of importance to address in paragraph (a) general submissions
of petitions for rulemaking or exemption, and paragraph (b) specific
petitions for rulemaking or exemption for relief from part 139 of this
chapter.
    Because these actions are merely administrative in nature, the FAA
finds that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is
unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for

making this amendment effective upon publication.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
Accordingly, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 11
is amended as follows:

The Amendments

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

0
2. Revise Sec.  11.63(a), (b), and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  11.63  How and to whom do I submit my petition for rulemaking or
petition for exemption?

    (a) To submit a petition for rulemaking or exemption--
    (1) By electronic submission, submit your petition for rulemaking
or exemption to FAA through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov,
the Federal Docket Management System Web site. For additional
instructions, you may visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations.
    (2) By paper submission, send the original signed copy of your
petition for rulemaking or exemption to this address: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    (b) Submit a petition for rulemaking or exemption from part 139 of
this chapter--
    (1) To the appropriate FAA airport field office in whose area your
airport is, or will be, established; and
    (2) To the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 or by electronic submission to this Internet
address: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (c) The FAA may designate other means by which you can submit
petitions in the future.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 30, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-31304 Filed 1-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P