[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27212-27214]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11374]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74884; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees for
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances to Add a Late Fee In Connection With Failure
To Submit the Non-Display Use Declaration

May 6, 2015.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 27, 2015, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances to add a late fee in connection with failure to submit the
non-display use declaration, operative on May 1, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances, as set forth on the NYSE MKT Equities Proprietary Market
Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''), to add a late fee in connection
with failure to submit an updated non-display use declaration. The
proposed change to the Fee Schedule would be operative on May 1, 2015.
    The Exchange established the current fees for non-display services
for NYSE MKT OpenBook, NYSE MKT Trades and NYSE MKT BBO in April 2013
and amended those fees and added non-display fees for NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances in September 2014.\4\ The

2013 Non-Display Filing established a requirement that data recipients
that receive real-time NYSE MKT market data subject to Non-Display Use
fees submit a declaration with respect to their use of non-display
data.\5\ In connection with the fee changes in the 2014 Non-Display
Filing, the Exchange required data recipients that receive real-time
NYSE MKT market data subject to Non-Display Use fees to complete and
submit an updated Non-Display Use Declaration by September 1, 2014.\6\
The 2014 Non-Display Filing also established that data recipients are
required to submit an updated annual Non-Display Use Declaration by
January 31st of each year beginning in 2016. In addition, if a data
recipient's use of real-time NYSE MKT market data changes at any time
after the data recipient submits a Non-Display Use Declaration, the
data recipient must inform the Exchange of the change by completing and
submitting at the time of the change an updated declaration reflecting
the change of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69285 (April 3,
2013), 78 FR 21172 (April 9, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-32) (``2013 Non-
Display Filing'') and 72020 (Sept. 9, 2014), 79 FR 55040 (Sept. 15,
2014) (SR-NYSEMKT-2014-72) (``2014 Non-Display Filing'').
    \5\ The non-display fee structure established in the 2013 Non-
Display Filing replaced a monthly reporting obligation with respect
to non-display devices with the requirement to submit the non-
display use declaration. The Exchange also notes that if a data
recipient only subscribes to products for which there are no non-
display usage fees, e.g., NYSE MKT Realtime Reference Prices, then
no declaration is required.
    \6\ The current form of the Non-Display Use Declaration
reflected the changes to the non-display fees set forth in the 2014
Non-Display Filing and replaced the NYSE Euronext Non-Display Use
Declaration established in connection with the 2013 Non-Display
Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that if a data recipient does not timely submit
a Non-Display Use Declaration, the Exchange does not have up-to-date
information about the data recipient's data use and therefore may not
be charging the correct fees to the data recipient. In order to
correctly assess fees for the non-display use of NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances, the Exchange needs to have current and accurate information
about the use of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances. The failure of data
recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration on time leads to
potentially incorrect billing and administrative burdens, including
tracking and obtaining late Non-Display Use Declarations and correcting
customer records in connection with late Non-Display Use Declarations.
The purpose of the proposed late fee is to incent data recipients to
submit the Non-Display Use Declaration promptly to avoid the
administrative burdens associated with the late submission of Non-
Display Use Declarations.
    The Exchange proposes to establish a Non-Display Declaration Late
Fee of $1,000 per month. The proposed fee would be charged to any data
recipient that pays an Access Fee for NYSE MKT Order Imbalances that
has failed to timely complete and submit a Non-Display Use Declaration.
    With respect to the Non-Display Use Declaration that was due by
September 1, 2014, the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee would apply to
NYSE MKT Order Imbalances data recipients that have not submitted the
Non-Display Use Declaration by June 30, 2015, and would apply beginning
July 1, 2015 and for each month thereafter until the data recipient has
completed and submitted the Non-Display Use Declaration. With respect
to the annual Non-Display Use Declaration due by January 31st of each
year beginning in 2016, the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee would
apply to data recipients that fail to complete and submit the annual
Non-Display Use Declaration by the January 31st due date, and would
apply beginning February 1st and for each month thereafter until the
data recipient has completed and submitted the annual Non-Display Use
Declaration.\7\ A Non-Display Use Declaration that is clearly
incomplete would not be considered to have been completed and submitted
to the Exchange on time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange has established the Non-Display Declaration
Late Fee with respect to NYSE MKT OpenBook and in that filing
adopted endnote 2, which specifies the effective dates for the Non-
Display Declaration Late Fee as described above. See SR-NYSEMKT-
2015-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to impose a late fee in
connection with the submission of the Non-Display Use Declaration. In
order to correctly assess fees for the non-display use of NYSE MKT
Order Imbalances, the Exchange needs to have current and accurate
information about the use of NYSE MKT Order Imbalances. The failure of
data recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration on time leads
to potentially incorrect billing and administrative burdens, including
tracking and obtaining late Non-Display Use Declarations and correcting
and following up on payments owed in connection with late Non-Display
Use Declarations. The purpose of the late fee is to incent data
recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration promptly to avoid
the administrative burdens associated with the late submission of Non-
Display Use Declarations. The Non-Display Declaration Late Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all
data recipients that choose to subscribe to the NYSE MKT Order
Imbalances feed.
    The Non-Display Declaration Late Fee is also consistent with
similar pricing adopted in 2013 by the Consolidated Tape Association
(``CTA'').\10\ The CTA imposes a monthly fee of $2,500 for each of
Network A and Network B for firms that fail to comply with their
reporting obligations in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013)(SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data. In addition to being
able to choose which proprietary data products (if any) to use and how
to use them, a user can avoid the late fees that are the subject of
this filing entirely by simply complying with the requisite deadlines.
    In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of fierce competition to sell proprietary data
products and for order flow, as well as numerous alternatives to the
Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources,
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably

discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data
product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns that any
particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the purchase
(the returns on use being a particularly important aspect of non-
display uses of proprietary data).

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2015-35 and should be submitted on or before
June 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11374 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 50895]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16346]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4712-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Tennessee; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4712-DR), dated May 17, 2023,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 17, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 17, 2023, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Tennessee resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds, and
tornado during the period of March 1 to March 3, 2023, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Tennessee.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrew D. Friend, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Tennessee have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Benton, Bledsoe, Campbell, Carroll, Cheatham, Clay, Crockett,
Davidson, Decatur, Dickson, Fentress, Gibson, Giles, Grundy,
Hamilton, Hardin, Haywood, Henderson, Henry, Hickman, Houston,
Humphreys, Jackson, Lake, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lewis, Macon,
Madison, Marion, Meigs, Monroe, Montgomery, Moore, Obion, Perry,
Pickett, Polk, Rhea, Robertson, Stewart, Sumner, Tipton, Wayne, and
White Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Tennessee are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-16346 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45935-45936]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0030; OMB No. 1660-0046]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning enrollment for students and score
assessments for FEMA's Independent Study Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2013-0030. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Moat, Training Specialist,
Emergency Management Institute,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may contact the
Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of
information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA's Emergency Management Institute (EMI)
provides a wide variety of training to emergency management personnel
throughout the country. The EMI Independent Study (IS) Program is part
of the FEMA training program authorized under section 611(f) of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, Public Law 93-288
as amended. These courses are offered online by the Emergency
Management Institute (EMI). The IS Program provides valuable training
to Federal, State, local and Tribal emergency management personnel and
the general citizenry of the United States without having to attend a
resident course at EMI, or at a State-sponsored course. The IS program
also includes a course on the National Incident Management System
(NIMS). The National Incident Management System is our nation's
incident management system. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5,
``Management of Domestic Incidents'' requires the adoption of NIMS by
all Federal departments and agencies. This directive also requires that
Federal preparedness assistance funding for States, Territories, local
jurisdictions and Tribal entities be dependent on being NIMS
compliance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Independent Study
Course Enrollment Application.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 064-0-9, Emergency Management Institute (EMI)
Independent Study Course Enrollment Application.
    Abstract: The IS program office collects data from FEMA Form 064-0-
9 to create and update student records and provide students with credit
for training completion. The system also allows FEMA to track
completions and failures of course exams. The data on the electronic
form will be encrypted

and sent to the server to be parsed into the Independent Study
database.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households, business or other for-
profit, not for profit institutions, farms, Federal government, State,
local or tribal government.
    Number of Respondents: 2,148,746.
    Number of Responses: 8,594,984.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,297,492.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual capital, start-up, and
operation or maintenance costs associated with this collection.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: July 23, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-18270 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-72-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2721-2723]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of actions on special permit applications.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of

Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2018.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          SPECIAL PERMITS DATA--Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11932-M......................  THE BOEING COMPANY......  173.168(b), 173.168(d),   To modify the special permit
                                                          173.168(d)(1)(i),         to authorize additional
                                                          173.168(f)(2)(ii).        designs of modified aircraft
                                                                                subassemblies containing
                                                                                oxygen generators.
14768-M......................  TOBIN & SONS MOVING &     173.196(a), 173.196(b),   To modify the special permit
                                STORAGE, INC.             173.199, 178.609.         to adjust the allowable
                                                                                temperature range and other
                                                                                editorial corrections.
15867-M......................  FIBA TECHNOLOGIES, INC..  180.501(b), 180.505,      To modify the special permit
                                                          180.509(d)(1),            to authorize individual
                                                          180.509(f)(1),            tubes in a bundle to be
                                                          180.519(a), 180.519(b).   equipped with pressure
                                                                                relief devices, remove
                                                                                invalid CGA C-23 references
                                                                                to 107A tubes, and to
                                                                                clarify test procedures and
                                                                                subsequent tube marking.
20232-M......................  LEIDOS BIOMEDICAL         173.196, 178.503(f),      To modify the special permit
                                RESEARCH, INC.            178.609.                  to authorize an additional
                                                                                Division 6.1 material.
20356-M......................  TESLA, INC..............  172.101(j)..............  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize an increase in
                                                                                the number of cells which
                                                                                make up a battery module.
                                                                                (mode 4)
20370-N......................  AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR      173.301(a)(1)...........  To authorize the
                                CO., INC.                                           transportation in commerce
                                                                                of hydrogen, compressed in
                                                                                non-DOT specification carbon
                                                                                fiber composite tanks.
20381-N......................  WESTERN INTERNATIONAL     172.101.................  To authorize the
                                GAS & CYLINDERS, INC.                               transportation in commerce
                                                                                of limited quantities of
                                                                                acetylene not dissolved in a
                                                                                solvent.
20396-N......................  DIGITAL WAVE CORPORATION  180.205(g)..............  To authorize the
                                                                                requalification of tanks
                                                                                manufactured under DOT-SP
                                                                                14951 and 14402 using modal
                                                                                acoustic emission (MAE) test
                                                                                method.
20504-N......................  A123 SYSTEMS LLC........  172.101(j), 173.185(b)..  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion batteries in
                                                                                excess of 35 kg net weight
                                                                                by cargo-only aircraft.
20527-N......................  PROCYON-ALPHA SQUARED,    172.400, 172.102(c)(1),   To authorize the manufacture,
                                INC.                      172.200, 172.300,         mark, sale, and use of non-
                                                          173.159a(c)(2),           DOT specification fiberboard
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iii),       boxes for the transportation
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iv),        in commerce of certain
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(v),         batteries without shipping
                                                          173.185(c)(3).            papers, marking of the
                                                                                proper shipping name and
                                                                                identification number or
                                                                                labeling, when transported
                                                                                for recycling or disposal.
20531-N......................  GENERAL ATOMICS.........  172.101(j), 173.185(a)..  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of low production lithium
                                                                                batteries in excess of 35 kg
                                                                                by cargo-only aircraft.
20543-N......................  SODASTREAM USA, INC.....  172.301(c), 180.209.....  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain cylinders that
                                                                                are authorized to be
                                                                                requalified every 10 years.
20547-N......................  FISHER SCIENTIFIC         173.158(e)..............  To authorize the one time
                                COMPANY LLC.                                        transportation of nitric
                                                                                acid without tightly closed
                                                                                intermediate inner
                                                                                packagings cushioned with an
                                                                                absorbent material.
20548-M......................  CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY   173.22(a)(4)(i),          To modify the special permit
                                COMMISSION, UNITED        173.22(a)(4)(i)(ii),      initially issued on an
                                STATES.                   173.24(f)(2).             emergency basis and make it
                                                                                permanent.
20550-N......................  NORTHSTAR TREKKING......  172.101(j), 172.200,      To authorize the
                                                          172.204(c)(3), 172.300,   transportation in commerce
                                                          173.27(b)(2),             of certain hazardous
                                                          175.30(a)(1), 175.75.     materials which are
                                                                                forbidden for transportation
                                                                                by air or exceed quantity
                                                                                limitations, to be
                                                                                transported by cargo
                                                                                aircraft within the State of
                                                                                Alaska when other means of
                                                                                transportation are
                                                                                impracticable or not
                                                                                available.
20586-M......................  HAZ-MAT RESPONSE, INC...  ........................  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of non-DOT specification
                                                                                cylinders for a limited
                                                                                distance to safely analyze
                                                                                the contents and prepare for
                                                                                shipment in accordance with
                                                                                the HMR.
20587-N......................  SILK WAY WEST AIRLINES    172.101(j),               To authorize the
                                MMC.                      172.204(c)(3), 173.27,    transportation in commerce
                                                          175.30(a)(1).             of explosives by cargo only
                                                                                aircraft in amounts
                                                                                forbidden by the
                                                                                regulations.
20589-N......................  KALITTA AIR, L.L.C......  172.101(j),               To authorize the
                                                          172.204(c)(3),            transportation in commerce
                                                          173.27(b)(2),             of certain explosives which
                                                          173.27(b)(3),             are forbidden by cargo only
                                                          175.30(a)(1).             aircraft.

20590-N......................  TROY MANUFACTURING CO.,   173.306(a)(3)(v)........  To authorize the manufacture
                                INC.                                                mark sale and use of DOT
                                                                                Specification 2P
                                                                                nonrefillable aluminum cans
                                                                                with inner aluminum/PET
                                                                                laminate bags containing a
                                                                                Class 3 material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          SPECIAL PERMITS DATA--Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11516-M......................  CHEMTRONICS INC.........  172.200, 172.400,         To modify the special permit
                                                          172.500, 173.304a(a),     to authorize additional 2.1
                                                          Part 174, Part 177.       hazmat to be transported.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         SPECIAL PERMITS DATA--Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20583-N......................  SPORT WADE INC..........  180.209(a)..............  Request for facility
                                                                                registration to re-qualify
                                                                                cylinders by visual
                                                                                inspection method only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-00807 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4901-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 139 (Monday, July 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42396-42397]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2014-0011-N-02]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Requests (ICRs)
abstracted below are being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICRs describes the nature of
the information collections and their expected burdens. The Federal
Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
following collections of information was published on May 7, 2014 (79
FR 26299).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 20, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone:
(202) 493-6132). (This telephone number is not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, sec. 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised at
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On May 7, 2014, FRA published a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB
approval. See 79 FR 26299. FRA received no comments after issuing this
notice. Accordingly, these information collection activities have been
re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and are being
forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The revised
requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by
the PRA.
    Title: Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation and Improvement
Projects.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0578.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a previously approved
collection.
    Abstract: Section 9002 of SAFETEA-LU amended chapter 201 of Title
49 of the United States Code by adding new section 20154, which
establishes the basic elements of a funding program for capital grants
for rail relocation and improvement projects. Subsection (b) of the new
section 20154 mandates that the Secretary of Transportation issue
``temporary regulations'' to implement the capital grants program and
then issue final regulations by October 1, 2006.

    In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $20,145,000 for the Program,
reduced by rescission to $20,040,200. Of this sum, $14,905,000 was
available for discretionary (competitive) grants. After evaluating and
scoring 37 applications, FRA awarded $14,315,300 to seven different
projects, leaving $589,700. In FY 2009, Congress appropriated
$25,000,000 and directed that $17,100,000 be awarded to 23 specific
projects, with $7,900,000 left over for discretionary grants.
Subsequently, in FY 2010, Congress appropriated $34,532,000 for the
Program, and directed that $24,519,200 go to 27 specifically enumerated
projects. FRA combined the remaining $10,012,800 with the $589,700 that
was not awarded from the FY 2008 competition, $2,000,000 that was
awarded to one of the FY 2008 projects but which the project sponsors
ultimately turned down, and the $7,900,000 in FY 2009 discretionary
funding for a total of $20,502,500. These funds were the subject of a
Notice of Funding Availability that FRA published in the Federal
Register on September 10, 2010. The application period closed on
October 29, 2010.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 26,083 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via email to OMB
at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 15, 2014.
Rebecca Pennington,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-16984 Filed 7-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51865-51866]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twentieth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 222 (SC 222) AMS(R)S,
Joint Meeting With EUROCAE WG-82

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twentieth Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 222.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twentieth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 222.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 22nd-24th from 8:00 a.m.-
12:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Inmarsat, 99 City Road, London,
England, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 222, Joint
Meeting with Eurocae WG-82. Inmarsat is located next to Old St
Underground Station. On leaving the ticket barrier area turn left. To
register your attendance, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tel: +44 20 7728 1161 (desk), Tel: +44 7740 735096
(mobile). Those who plan to attend in person should also notify the
Chair of WG-82, Mr. Armin Schlereth at least seven days in advance.
Details on in-person attendance, such as hotels and contact information
may be found in the WG-82/23 calling notice posted as WP-171 in the/
documents folder of the SC-222 Workspace. Interested persons are
invited to attend the WG-82 portions of the meeting as well. The
Eurocae WG-82 meeting extends all day (London time) on Tuesday and
Wednesday. For details, see WP-171. Armin Schlereth, DFS Deutsche
Flugsicherung GmbH, SIS/DM, Am DFS Campus 7, 63225 Langen, Tel: +49
6103 707 2433, Mobile: +49 172 5209 369, FAX: +49 6103 707 2490. Per
RTCA PMC changes to the SC-222 Terms of Reference, this meeting will be
a joint meeting with Eurocae WG-82. The two main objectives for SC-222
are the review and approval for FRAC of Change 1 to the Iridium
material of DO-262B and review of progress toward an Inmarsat SBB MASPs
for ``Class B'' equipment, as discussed in the April joint meeting.
    The SC-222 portions of the meeting are expected to be largely
virtual, conducted over Webex with a telephone bridge. Dr. LaBerge will
be in the US, but DFO David Robinson of FAA will be attending in
person. Alan Schuster-Bruce of Inmarsat will serve as Chairman pro tem
for any portions of the meeting that Dr. LaBerge is unable to attend.
Eurocontrol meetings are usually business formal.
    Remote instructions are the following:

https://rtca.webex.com/rtca/j.php?MTID=ma6d7ebb28b52edcdfb39163cfad016b3
Access Code: 689 965 723
Meeting password: September15

    Audio connection:

1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)

    The agenda will include the following:

Tuesday, September 22, 2015 (8:00 a.m. EDT-12:00 p.m. EDT)

1. Greetings & Attendance
2. Review summary of January meeting (19th Plenary) will be
accomplished by email prior to this joint meeting. See WP-170 in the /
documents folder on the SC-222 workspace
3. (WG-82 Item 7a) Discussion of the draft MASPS prepared by Alan
Schuster-Bruce of Inmarsat. This document has been posted as WP-172 in
the /documents folder on the SC-222 workspace. Participants should read
the information posted on the SC-222 Workspace prior to the meeting.
(1.5 hours duration)
4. (7b) Discussion of SESAR P15.2.4, QoS Requirements. This document/
presentation will be posted as WP-174. (1 hour)
5. (7c) Requirements apportionment and use of VTB (TAS). (0.5 hour)
6. (7d) Discussion of next steps

Wednesday, September 23, 2015 (8:00 a.m. EDT-12:00 p.m. EDT)

1. (WG-82 Item 9.a.i) Present and discuss the status of the Inmarsat
MOPS document. (1 hour duration)
2. (9.a.ii) Discussion of the WP-173, which is a draft of Change 1 to
the Iridium material of DO-262B. The purpose of the discussion is to
approve Change 1 for the FRAC process, with a desire to have the
document approved at the December PMC meeting. This discussion will be
time limited. If approval of a FRAC version cannot be accomplished on
Wednesday, the discussion will be continued at a SC-222-only session on
Thursday morning. (1 hour duration)
3. (9.b) Discuss the IRIS Air Interface. (1 hour)
4. (9.c) The A, B, C, Class structure as potential conflicts with other
aviation standards identifiers
5. (9.d) Next steps
6. (10) Any other business
7. (11) Summary and determination of next meeting and other
coordination actions

Thursday, September 24, 2015 (9:00 a.m. EDT-12:00 p.m. EDT)

1. Additional discussion of WP-173, if necessary. If all issues are
resolved

and the document is approved for FRAC during the Wednesday session,
this session will not be necessary. This session will be SC-222 members
only, although any WG-82 members are invited to attend

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 19, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, Next Generation, Enterprise Support
Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-21174 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17037-17043]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06790]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775; FRL-9906-73-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR92

Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile
Organic Compounds--Exclusion of 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to revise the regulatory definition of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This direct final
action adds 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP; CAS number
124-68-5) to the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory
definition of VOCs on the basis that this compound makes a negligible
contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.

DATES: This rule is effective June 25, 2014 without further notice,
unless the EPA receives adverse comment on this action by May 27, 2014.
If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the final
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0775, by one of the following methods:
     Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments:
www.regulations.gov.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0775.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., William Jefferson
Clinton, West Building Room: 3334, Mail Code: 28221T, Washington, DC
20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0775. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov,
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0775, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., William Jefferson Clinton West Building,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Souad Benromdhane, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts
Division, Mail Code C539-07, Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-5315; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt Compound
IV. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition
    A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone
    B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or the Environment
    C. Climate Impacts
    D. Conclusions
V. Direct Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

I. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. This action revises the EPA's regulatory
definition of VOCs for purposes of preparing SIPs to attain the NAAQS
for ozone under title I of the CAA. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposed rule to make this revision to the
regulatory definition of VOCs if adverse comments are received on the
parallel proposal or this direct final rule. We will not institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this direct final rule include,
but are not necessarily limited to, state and local air pollution
control agencies that adopt and implement regulations to control air
emissions of VOCs; and industries manufacturing and/or using pigments
in water-based coatings, additives in metalworking fluids and in food
contact paper, neutralizers in personal care products, and
intermediates in chemical synthesis.

III. Background

A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone,
the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be
released into the atmosphere. The VOCs are those organic compounds of
carbon which form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions.
Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity. That is, they do
not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the
same extent. Some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone; therefore,
changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional
ozone pollution episodes. It has been the EPA's policy that organic
compounds with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from
the regulatory definition of VOCs so as to focus VOCs control efforts
on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. The
EPA also believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive
for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more
highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. The EPA lists
compounds that it has determined to be negligibly reactive in its
regulations as being excluded from the regulatory definition of VOCs.
(40 CFR 51.100(s)).
    The CAA requires the regulation of VOCs for various purposes.
Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority to
define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be
treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding
negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOCs
was first laid out in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented
subsequently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (70 FR 54046, September
13, 2005). The EPA uses the reactivity of ethane as the threshold for
determining whether a compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds
that are less reactive than, or equally reactive to, ethane under
certain assumed conditions may be deemed negligibly reactive and
therefore suitable for exemption from the regulatory definition of
VOCs. Compounds that are more reactive than ethane continue to be
considered VOCs for regulatory purposes and therefore are subject to
control requirements. The selection of ethane as the threshold compound
was based on a series of smog chamber experiments that underlay the
1977 policy.
    The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity
of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The reaction rate
constant (known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii)
the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass
basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a reactivity per mole basis.
Differences between these three metrics are discussed below.
    The kOH is the reaction rate constant of the compound
with the OH radical in the air. This reaction is typically the first
step in a series of chemical reactions by which a compound breaks down
in the air and participates in the ozone-forming process. If this step
is slow, the compound will likely not form

ozone at a very fast rate. The kOH values have long been
used by the EPA as a metric of photochemical reactivity and ozone-
forming activity, and they have been the basis for most of the EPA's
previous exemptions of negligibly reactive compounds from the
regulatory definition of VOCs. The kOH metric is inherently
a molar-based comparison, i.e., it measures the rate at which molecules
react.
    The MIR, both by mole and by mass, is a more recently developed
metric of photochemical reactivity derived from a computer-based
photochemical model. This metric considers the complete ozone forming
activity of a compound on a single day, not merely the first reaction
step. Further explanation of the MIR metric can be found in Carter,
1994.
    The MIR values for compounds are typically expressed as grams of
ozone formed per gram of VOC (mass basis), but they may also be
expressed as grams of ozone formed per mole of VOC (molar basis). For
comparing the reactivities of two compounds, using the molar-based MIR
values considers an equal number of molecules of the two compounds.
Alternatively, using the mass-based MIR values compares an equal mass
of the two compounds, which will involve different numbers of
molecules, depending on the relative molecular weights. The molar-based
MIR comparison is consistent with the original smog chamber experiments
that underlie the original selection of ethane as the threshold
compound, in that these experiments compared equal molar concentrations
of individual VOCs. It is also consistent with previous reactivity
determinations based on kOH values, which are inherently
molar-based. By contrast, the mass-based MIR comparison is more
consistent with how MIR values and other reactivity metrics have been
applied in reactivity-based emission limits, such as the national VOC
emissions standards for aerosol coatings (40 CFR part 59 subpart E).
Many other VOCs regulations contain limits based upon a weight of VOC
per volume of product, such as the EPA's regulations for limiting VOC
emissions from architectural coatings (40 CFR part 59 subpart D).
However, the fact that regulations are structured to measure VOC
content by weight for ease of implementation and enforcement does not
necessarily control whether VOC exemption decisions should be made on a
weight basis as well.
    The choice of the molar basis versus the mass basis for the ethane
comparison can be significant. In some cases, a compound might be
considered less reactive than ethane under the mass basis but not under
the molar basis. For compounds with molecular weights higher than that
of ethane, use of the mass basis results in more VOCs being classified
as less reactive than ethane than use of the molar basis.
    The EPA has considered the choice between a molar or mass basis for
the comparison to ethane in past rulemakings and guidance. In the
Interim Guidance, the EPA stated:

    [A] comparison to ethane on a mass basis strikes the right
balance between a threshold that is low enough to capture compounds
that significantly affect ozone concentrations and a threshold that
is high enough to exempt some compounds that may usefully substitute
for more highly reactive compounds.
    When reviewing compounds that have been suggested for VOC-exempt
status, EPA will continue to compare them to ethane using
kOH expressed on a molar basis and MIR values expressed
on a mass basis.

    The EPA's 2005 Interim Guidance also noted that concerns have
sometimes been raised about the potential impact of a VOC exemption on
environmental endpoints other than ozone concentrations, including fine
particle formation, air toxics exposures, stratospheric ozone depletion
and climate change. The EPA has recognized, however, that there are
existing regulatory and non-regulatory programs that are specifically
designed to address these issues, and the EPA continues to believe in
general that the impacts of VOC exemptions on environmental endpoints
other than ozone formation will be adequately addressed by these
programs. The VOC exemption policy is intended to facilitate attainment
of the ozone NAAQS. As such, in general, VOC exemption decisions will
continue to be based solely on consideration of a compound's
contribution to ozone formation. However, if EPA determines that a
particular VOC exemption is likely to result in a significant increase
in the use of a compound and that the increased use would pose a
significant risk to human health or the environment that would not be
addressed adequately by existing programs or policies, the EPA reserves
the right to exercise its judgment in deciding whether to grant an
exemption.

B. Petition To List AMP as an Exempt Compound

    Dow Chemical Company submitted a petition to the EPA on October 12,
2012, requesting that 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (also known as AMP;
CAS number 124-68-5) be exempted from the regulatory definition of VOCs
based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner
indicated that AMP may be used in a variety of applications including
in industries involved in the manufacture or use of pigments in water-
based coatings, as an additive in metalworking fluids, in food contact
paper, as a neutralizer in personal care products, and as an
intermediate in chemical synthesis.
    To support its petition, Dow Chemical referenced several documents,
including a technical report on the maximum incremental reactivity of
AMP (Carter, 2012) and two peer-reviewed journal articles on its
reaction rates. According to these documents, the reactivity of AMP is
0.25 gm O3/gm AMP in the maximum incremental reactivity
(MIR) scale. The reactivity rate is slightly less than that of ethane,
0.28 gm O3/gm ethane, the compound that the EPA has used for
comparison to define ``negligible'' ozone reactivity for the purpose of
exempting compounds from the regulatory definition of VOCs. The rate
constant for the gas-phase reaction of OH radicals with AMP,
(kOH) has been measured to be 2.8 x 10-\11\
cm\3\/molecule-sec at ~300 K (Harris and Pitts, 1983), giving it a
relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere and thus reducing its
ability to contribute to ozone formation. Under the conventional
assumption of OH concentration of 3 x 10\6\ molecules/cm\3\, AMP would
decay exponentially with a mean lifetime of about 4 hours (Carter,
2008). Based on the measured reactivity rate of AMP (Harris and Pitts,
1983), AMP has a larger kOH than ethane (ethane = 2.4 x
10-\13\) and therefore it is initially more reactive than
ethane, but as explained in detail in Carter, 2008, AMP's first
reaction primarily terminates radicals rather than cycling them and
therefore generally reduces ozone. With regard to stratospheric ozone
depletion, the petitioner stated that the ozone depletion potential of
AMP is insignificant based on the expected possible initial reactions
described in Carter 2008 and the general theory supporting the
estimated mechanisms discussed in Carter 2012. Given that AMP has a
relatively short atmospheric lifetime, and because it does not contain
chlorine or bromine, it is not expected to contribute to the depletion
of the stratospheric ozone layer.

IV. The EPA's Assessment of the Petition

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the petition for
exemption of AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs. This action is
consistent with the 2005 Interim Guidance based on comparison of the
three reactivity

metric values for AMP to the corresponding values for ethane. As a
short-lived substance, there is no evidence that AMP would have a
substantial climate impact: AMP meets the Interim Guidance criteria for
no significant risks in terms of environmental endpoints other than
ozone formation. Information on these topics is given in the following
sections.

A. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone

    The reaction rate of AMP for reaction with OH radical
(kOH) has been measured to be 2.8 x 10-\11\
cm\3\/molecule-sec (Harris and Pitts, 1983); other reactions with ozone
and nitrate radical were negligibly small. The corresponding reaction
rate of ethane with OH is 2.4 x 10-\13\ cm\3\/molecule-sec
(Atkinson et al., 2006).
    The overall atmospheric reactivity of AMP was studied in an
experimental smog chamber, and the chemical mechanism derived from this
study was used to model the complete formation of ozone for an entire
single day under realistic atmospheric conditions (Carter, 2012). Using
the standard 39-city array of input conditions, Carter calculated a MIR
value of 0.25 g O3/g VOC for AMP for ``averaged
conditions,'' versus 0.28 g O3/g VOC for ethane.
    Table 1 presents the three reactivity metrics for AMP as they
compare to ethane.

                                     Table 1--Reactivities of Ethane and AMP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Maximum         Maximum
                                                                                incremental     incremental
                Compound                         kOH (cm\3\/molecule-sec)           reactivity      reactivity
                                                                                (MIR) (g O3/    (MIR) (g O3/g
                                                                                mole VOC)         VOC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethane..................................  2.4 x 10-13...........................            8.4             0.28
AMP.....................................  2.8 x 10-11...........................           22.25            0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. kOH value at 298 K for ethane is from Atkinson et al., 2006 (page 2636).
2. kOH value at 300 K for AMP is from Harris and Pitts, 1983 (page 50).
3. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of ethane is from Carter, 2011.
4. Mass-based MIR value (g O3/g VOC) of AMP is from Carter, 2012.
5. Molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC) values were calculated from the mass-based MIR (g O3/g VOC) values using the
  number of moles per gram of the relevant organic compound.

    From the data in Table 1, it can be seen that AMP has a higher
kOH value than ethane, meaning that it initially reacts more
quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. Also, a molecule of AMP is more
reactive than a molecule of ethane in terms of complete ozone forming
activity as shown by the molar-based MIR (g O3/mole VOC)
values. However, the nitrogen-centered radical in AMP scavenges
radicals, primarily NOX and is expected to form nitramine
that is assumed to be inert according to Harris and Pitts, 1983. This
is in line with the effects of AMP addition on ozone concentration
reduction observed in the chamber experiments of Carter, 2008. The
early reactivity of AMP is thus short lived, because the reaction
pathway is terminated by the intermediate production of assumed inert
nitramine. Unlike other VOCs, AMP is a base and might be lost to some
degree by reaction with HNO3, forming non-volatile amine
salts, reducing its availability in the gas phase for O3
formation. As a result, one gram of AMP has a lower MIR value than one
gram of ethane. Thus, under the 2005 Interim Guidance AMP is eligible
to be exempted from the regulatory definition of VOCs, on the basis of
the mass-based MIR.

B. Likelihood of Risk to Human Health or the Environment

    Information in Dow Chemical Company's petition and its appendices
as well as the reference material indicates that AMP has low toxicity
(Griffin 1990), no irritation or skin sensitization, and no detectable
genotoxic activity in vitro or in vivo. AMP was subject to the Ames
test, the mouse lymphoma assay and the mouse micronucleus test (Gudi,
1998; San and Clark, 1997; and Wagner 1996) and was found negative in
these studies among several others. AMP has a toxicity profile amply
documented in the appendices provided with the petition material and
placed in the docket for this rulemaking. AMP also has a favorable
toxicity profile supported by the Hazard Characterization Document
dedicated to AMP published by EPA in March of 2012, titled ``Screening-
level Hazard Characterization of High Production Volume Chemicals--2-
Amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP) CASRN 124-68-5'' under the High
Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program;
http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/hpvis/hazchar/124685_AMP_March_2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, AMP is a reasonably strong base and forms salts with
acids. Therefore, in many formulations very little AMP will evaporate
and will be available for atmospheric reaction due to its ionic or salt
form. Therefore, exposure is low due to low volatility at room
temperature. However, repeated inhalation of vapor or mist could cause
respiratory irritation. Burnett et al. (2009) reviewed safety data and
found that AMP is safe to use in cosmetics after he performed several
acute inhalation studies with AMP as well as with AMP in alcohol and
propellant. The studies indicated that AMP is nontoxic by inhalation.
The studies also tested other routes of exposure and found them to be
nontoxic as well.
    AMP is not regulated as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under title
I of the Clean Air Act. Also, it is not listed as a toxic chemical
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA).
    The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires the EPA to assess
and prevent any unreasonable risks to human health and the environment
before a new chemical substance is introduced into commerce. Section 5
of TSCA requires manufacturers and importers to notify the EPA before
manufacturing or importing a new chemical substance. This
premanufacture notice, or PMN, must be submitted at least 90 days prior
to the manufacture (including import) of the chemical. Under the TSCA
New Chemicals Program, the EPA then performs a risk assessment on the
new chemical substance to determine whether an unreasonable risk may,
or will, be presented by the expected manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the new

substance. AMP is TSCA compliant, but is not a new compound and did not
undergo PMN review.
    The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program is the EPA's
program to evaluate and regulate substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals. In Section 612(c) of the CAA, the agency is authorized to
identify and publish lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes
for class I or class II ozone-depleting substances. AMP is not a
substitute for any of the ozone-depleting chemicals, and it has not
been evaluated under the SNAP program. For the reasons stated in
section III, AMP does not contribute to the depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer.

C. Climate Impacts

    The EPA has previously exempted compounds with modest climate
impacts from the regulatory definition of VOCs. Because AMP has a
relatively short atmospheric lifetime (i.e., about 4 hours under the
conventional assumption of a hydroxyl radical concentration of 3 x
10\6\ molecules/cm\3\), its direct contribution to global warming
should be insignificant and thus any indirect contributions to global
warming through interactions with ozone and methane chemistry should be
of the order of or smaller than that of ethane (in addition to any
conversion of carbon in AMP to carbon dioxide).

D. Conclusion

    In summary, the EPA finds that AMP is negligibly reactive with
respect to its contribution to tropospheric ozone formation and thus
may be exempted from EPA's definition of VOCs in 40 CFR section
51.100(s). We consider risks not related to tropospheric ozone
associated with currently allowed uses of the chemical to be
acceptable. AMP has not been the subject of any SNAP review. AMP's
performance as a multifunctional neutralizer combined with its reduced
ozone potential and favorable toxicity data makes this product a
preferred one compared to more toxic chemicals used for the same
purpose. In addition, there is no evidence that climate effects or
other environmental impacts resulting from AMP emissions should
disqualify AMP for exemption from the regulatory definition of VOCs
based on the 2005 Interim Guidance criteria.

V. Direct Final Action

    The EPA is responding to the petition by revising its regulatory
definition of VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to add AMP to the list of
compounds that are exempt from the regulatory definition of VOCs
because they are negligibly reactive, on the basis that it is less
reactive than ethane on a mass MIR basis. If an entity uses or produces
any of this compound and is subject to EPA regulations limiting the use
of VOC in a product, limiting the VOC emissions from a facility, or
otherwise controlling the use of VOC for purposes related to attaining
the ozone NAAQS, then this compound will not be counted as a VOC in
determining whether these regulatory obligations have been met. This
action may also affect whether this compound is considered a VOC for
state regulatory purposes to reduce ozone formation if a state relies
on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs. States are not obligated to
exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that the EPA has found to
be negligibly reactive. However, no state may take credit for
controlling this compound in its ozone control strategy. For example,
reduction in emissions for this compound will not be considered or
counted in determining whether states have met rate of progress
requirement for VOCs in SIPs for purpose of meeting the ozone NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirement.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) A
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) A small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this direct final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This direct final
rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby
relieves users of the compound from requirements to control emissions
of the compound. We have therefore concluded that this direct final
rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

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 action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This direct final
rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby
relieves users of the compound from requirements to control emissions
of the compound.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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. This direct final rule removes AMP
from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby relieves users of
the compound from requirements to control emissions of the compound.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This direct final rule removes AMP from the regulatory definition of
VOCs and thereby relieves users from requirements to control emissions
of the compound. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866. While this direct final rule is not subject to the Executive
Order, the EPA has reason to believe that at higher concentrations
ozone has a disproportionate effect on active children who play
outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997). The EPA has not
identified any specific studies on whether or to what extent AMP may
affect children's health.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``(66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a ``significant energy action''
under EO 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, section 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. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the EPA has not considered the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 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 has determined that this direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it will not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This direct final rule removes AMP from the regulatory
definition of VOCs and thereby relieves users of the compound from
requirements to control emissions of the compound.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on June 25, 2014.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for review by the Administrator of this final action does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such action.
Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to the exemption
of AMP from the regulatory definition of VOCs must be filed in the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days
from the date final action is published in the Federal Register.

References

Atkinson, R., Baulch, D.L., Cox, R.A., Crowley, J.N., Hampson, Jr.,
R.F., Hynes, R.G., Jenkin, M.E., Kerr, J.A., Rossi, M.J., and Troe,
J. (2006) Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric
chemistry: Volume II--gas phase reactions of organic species. Atmos.
Chem. Phys. 6: 3625-4055.
Burnett, C.L., Bergfeld, W.F., Belsito, D.V., Klaassen, C.D., Marks,
Jr., J.G., Shank, R.C., Slaga, T.J., Snyder, P.W., Expert Panel, and
Andersen, F.A. (2009) Final Amended Report on Safety Assessment on
Aminomethyl Propanol and Aminomethyl Propanediol. Int. J. Toxicol
28(6S) 141S-161S.
Carter, W.P.L. (1994) Development of Ozone Reactivity Scales for
Volatile Organic Compositions. J. Air Waste Manage, 44: 881-899.
Carter, W.P.L. (2008) Reactivity Estimates for Selected Consumer
Product Compounds, Final Report to California Air Resources Board
Contract No. 06-408, February 19, 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/reactivity/consumer_products.pdf.
Carter, W.P.L. (2010) Development of the SAPRC-07 Chemical Mechanism
and Updated Ozone Reactivity Scales, Report to the California Air
Resources Board, Revised January 27, 2010. http://www.engr.ucr.edu/
~carter/SAPRC/saprc07.pdf.
Carter, W.P.L. (2011) SAPRC Atmospheric Chemical Mechanisms and VOC
Reactivity Scales, Web page at http://www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/
SAPRC/. Page last updated June 21. Reactivity tabulation available
at http://www.cert.ucr.edu/~carter/SAPRC/scales07.xls. May 11 May
11, 2011.

Carter, W.P.L. (2012) Atmospheric Ozone Reactivity Estimates for 2-
amino-2-methyl-1-propanol, College of Engineering Center for
Environmental Research and Technology (CE-CERT) and Air Pollution
Research Center, University of California, Riverside CA 92521,
September 26, 2012.
Griffin, T. (1990). A One-Year Oral Toxicity Study of AMP in Dogs.
Coulston Research Incorporated, White Sands Research Center,
Alamogordo, NM, USA. Amended by the original author on April 20,
1993.
Gudi, R. (1998) Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test (2-amino-2-
methyl-1-propanol). Laboratory Study Number G97CG03.123 of MA
Bioservices, Inc., Rockville, MD. Sponsored by Angus Chemical
Company, Buffalo Grove, IL.
Harris, G. and Pitts, J. (1983) Rates of Reaction of Hydroxyl
Radicals with 2-(Dimethylamino) ethanol and 2-Amino-2-methyl-1-
propanol in the Gas Phase at 300  2 K. Environ Sci.
Technol., 17: 50-51, 1983.
San, R. and Clark, J. (1997) In Vitro Mammalian Cell Gene Mutation
Test with an Independent Repeat Assay. Microbiological Associates,
Inc. The Dow Chemical Company Report No: DR-0309-4391-005.
Wagner, V. (1996) Salmonella/Escherichia Coli Plate Incorporation
Mutagenicity Assay with a Confirmatory Assay. Study Number
G95BU17.502001 of Microbiological Associates, Inc., Rockville, MD.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 21, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subpart F--Procedural Requirements

0
1. The authority citation for Part 51, Subpart F, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

Sec.  51.100--[Amended]

0
2. Section 51.100, paragraph (s)(1) introductory text, is amended by
removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into
these classes:'' and adding in their place the words ``2-amino-2-
methyl-1-propanol; and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into these
classes:''.

[FR Doc. 2014-06790 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P