[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66288-66290]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26465]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 141029906-4906-01]
RIN 0694-AG31

Venezuela: Implementation of Certain Military End Uses and End
Users License Requirements Under the Export Administration Regulations

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to the Venezuelan military's violent repression of
the Venezuelan people, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) in this final rule to
impose license requirements on the export, reexport, or transfer (in-
country) of certain items to or within Venezuela when intended for a
military end use or end user. This change complements an existing U.S.
arms embargo against Venezuela for its failure to cooperate in areas of
counterterrorism.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective November 7, 2014

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Foreign Policy Division, Office of
Nonproliferation and Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Starting in February 2014, the Venezuelan military was instrumental
in implementing a violent crackdown on anti-government protests. The
government's repression included direct violence against protesters,
detentions of protesters and political leaders, and acts of
intimidation, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. On July 30,
2014, the Department of State imposed visa restrictions against
Venezuelan government officials, including members of the Venezuelan
military, who participated or were complicit in human rights violations
and undermined democratic processes.
    The actions and policies of the Venezuelan military undermine
democratic processes and institutions and thereby constitute an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States.
    In response to abuses committed by the Venezuelan military on the
Venezuelan people, the U.S. Government is imposing ``military end use''
and ``military end user'' license requirements on Venezuela.

Military End Use and End User Restrictions

    It is generally the policy of the United States Government to
facilitate U.S. exports for civilian end uses, while preventing exports
that would enhance the military capability of certain destinations and
thereby threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United
States and its allies. In furtherance of this policy, the Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS) established a license requirement for
certain items intended for ``military end uses'' in a final rule
published June 19, 2007 (72 FR 33646). Specifically, that final rule
established a control, based on knowledge of a ``military end use,'' on
exports and reexports of certain items on the Commerce Control List
(CCL) that otherwise would not require a license to a specified
destination. The ``military end use'' control initially applied to
certain items exported, reexported or transferred (in country) to the
People's Republic of China. Subsequently, BIS applied ``military end
use'' and ``military end user'' controls to Russia in a final rule
published September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55608).

Imposition of Military Restrictions on Venezuela

    To implement the U.S. Government's response to the abuses by the
Venezuelan military, in this rule, BIS amends Sec.  744.21 of the EAR
to apply ``military end use'' and ``military end user'' license
requirements to Venezuela. Specifically, BIS amends Sec.  744.21 by
adding ``or Venezuela'' after ``Russia,'' wherever that name appears,
including in the heading of the section. Items subject to these license
requirements are those listed in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744.
    This final rule also adds a paragraph (h) to address the effects of
these new license requirements on transactions under contract prior to
the effective date of this rule.

Saving Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for export or reexport
under a license exception or without a license (i.e., under the
designator ``NLR'') as a result of this regulatory action that were on
dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en
route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on November 7, 2014,
pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign
destination, may proceed to that destination under the previously
applicable license exception or without

a license (NLR) so long as they are exported or reexported before
December 8, 2014. Any such items not actually exported or reexported
before midnight, on December 8, 2014, require a license in accordance
with this regulation.

Foreign Policy Report

    The extension of the military end use and end user controls to
Venezuela in this rule is the imposition of a foreign policy control.
Section 6(f) of the Export Administration Act requires that a report be
delivered to Congress before imposing such controls. The report was
delivered to Congress on November 6, 2014.

Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001,
the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR,
2001 Comp., p.783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March
8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of
August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959 (August11, 2014), has continued the Export
Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the
Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted
by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order
13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA),
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among
other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of
43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours
associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not
expected to significantly increase as a result of this rule. You may
send comments regarding the collection of information associated with
this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K.
Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because
this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the
United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). BIS also implements this rule
to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy objectives from
being undermined by immediately restricting the export, reexport or
transfer (in-country) of certain items to Venezuela for a military end
use or end-user. Further, no other law requires that a notice of
proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for
this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity
for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5
U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is amended to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22
U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179;
E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59
FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR,
1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p.
228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222,
66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3
CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 7, 2014, 79 FR 46959
(August 11, 2014); Notice of September 17, 2014, 79 FR 56475
(September 19, 2014); Notice of November 7, 2013, 78 FR 67289
(November 12, 2013); Notice of January 21, 2014, 79 FR 3721 (January
22, 2014).

0
2. Section 744.21 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  744.21  Restrictions on Certain `Military end uses' in the
People's Republic of China (PRC) or for a `Military end use' or
`Military end user' in Russia or Venezuela.

    (a)(1) General prohibition. In addition to the license requirements
for items specified on the Commerce Control List (CCL), you may not
export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any item subject to the EAR
listed in Supplement No. 2 to Part 744 to the PRC, Russia or Venezuela
without a license if, at the time of the export, reexport, or transfer
(in-country), either:
    (i) You have ``knowledge,'' as defined in Sec.  772.1 of the EAR,
that the item is intended, entirely or in part, for a `military end
use,' as defined in paragraph (f) of this section, in the PRC or for a
`military end use' or `military end user' in Russia or Venezuela; or
    (ii) You have been informed by BIS, as described in paragraph (b)
of this section, that the item is or may be intended, entirely or in
part, for a `military end use' in the PRC or for a `military end use'
or `military end-user' in Russia or Venezuela.
    (2) General prohibition. In addition to the license requirements
for 9x515 and ``600 series'' items specified on the Commerce Control
List (CCL), you may not export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) any
9x515 or ``600 series'' item, including items described in a .y
paragraph of a 9x515 or ``600 series'' ECCN, to the PRC, Russia or
Venezuela without a license.
    (b) Additional prohibition on those informed by BIS. BIS may inform
you either individually by specific notice, through amendment to the
EAR published in the Federal Register, or through a separate notice
published in the Federal Register, that a license is required for
specific exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of any item
because there is an unacceptable risk of use in or diversion to
`military end use' activities in the PRC or for a `military end use' or
`military end user' in Russia or Venezuela. Specific notice will be
given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Export Administration. When such notice is

provided orally, it will be followed by written notice within two
working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration or the Deputy Assistant Secretary's designee. The
absence of BIS notification does not excuse the exporter from
compliance with the license requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section.
    (c) License exception. Despite the prohibitions described in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, you may export, reexport, or
transfer (in-country) items subject to the EAR under the provisions of
License Exception GOV set forth in Sec.  740.11(b)(2)(i) and (ii) of
the EAR.
    (d) License application procedure. When submitting a license
application pursuant to this section, you must state in the
``additional information'' block of the application that ``this
application is submitted because of the license requirement in Sec.
744.21 of the EAR (Restrictions on Certain Military End Uses in the
People's Republic of China or for a `Military End Use' or `Military End
User' in Russia or Venezuela).'' In addition, either in the additional
information block of the application or in an attachment to the
application, you must include for the PRC all known information
concerning the military end use of the item(s) and for Russia or
Venezuela, all known information concerning the `military end use' and
`military end users' of the item(s). If you submit an attachment with
your license application, you must reference the attachment in the
``additional information'' block of the application.
    (e) License review standards. (1) Applications to export, reexport,
or transfer items described in paragraph (a) of this section will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the export,
reexport, or transfer would make a material contribution to the
military capabilities of the PRC, Russia, or Venezuela, and would
result in advancing the country's military activities contrary to the
national security interests of the United States. When it is determined
that an export, reexport, or transfer would make such a contribution,
the license will be denied.
    (2) Applications may be reviewed under chemical and biological
weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, or missile technology review
policies, as set forth in Sec. Sec.  742.2(b)(4), 742.3(b)(4) and
742.5(b)(4) of the EAR, if the end use may involve certain
proliferation activities.
    (3) Applications for items requiring a license for other reasons
that are destined to the PRC for a `military end use' or that are
destined to Russia or Venezuela for a `military end use' or `military
end user' also will be subject to the review policy stated in paragraph
(e)(1) of this section.
    (f) Military end use. In this section, `military end use' means:
incorporation into a military item described on the U.S. Munitions List
(USML) (22 CFR part 121, International Traffic in Arms Regulations);
incorporation into a military item described on the Wassenaar
Arrangement Munitions List (as set out on the Wassenaar Arrangement Web
site at http://www.wassenaar.org); incorporation into items classified
under ECCNs ending in ``A018'' or under ``600 series'' ECCNs; or for
the ``use,'' ``development,'' or ``production'' of military items
described on the USML or the Wassenaar Arrangement Munitions List, or
items classified under ECCNs ending in ``A018'' or under ``600 series''
ECCNs.

    Note to paragraph (f) of this section:  (1) As defined in Part
772 of the EAR, ``use'' means operation, installation (including on-
site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul and
refurbishing; ``development'' is related to all stages prior to
serial production, such as: design, design research, design
analyses, design concepts, assembly and testing of prototypes, pilot
production schemes, design data, process of transforming design data
into a product, configuration design, integration design, layouts;
and ``production'' means all production stages, such as: product
engineering, manufacturing, integration, assembly (mounting),
inspection, testing, quality assurance.
    (2) For purposes of this section, ``operation'' means to cause
to function as intended; ``installation'' means to make ready for
use, and includes connecting, integrating, incorporating, loading
software, and testing; ``maintenance'' means performing work to
bring an item to its original or designed capacity and efficiency
for its intended purpose, and includes testing, measuring,
adjusting, inspecting, replacing parts, restoring, calibrating,
overhauling; and ``deployment'' means placing in battle formation or
appropriate strategic position.

    (g) Military end user. In this section, the term `military end
user' means the national armed services (army, navy, marine, air force,
or coast guard), as well as the national guard and national police,
government intelligence or reconnaissance organizations, or any person
or entity whose actions or functions are intended to support `military
end uses' as defined in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (h) Effects on contracts. Venezuela: Transactions involving the
export, reexport or transfer (in country) of items to or within
Venezuela are not subject to the provisions of Sec.  744.21 if the
contracts for such transactions were signed prior to November 7, 2014.

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
Kevin J. Wolf,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-26465 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57565-57566]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22969]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0632; FRL--9729-1]

Request for Comment on Letters Seeking a Waiver of the Renewable
Fuel Standard; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period regarding letters seeking a
waiver of the renewable fuel standard.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
an extension of the public comment period associated with the Notice
entitled ``Request for Comment on Letters Seeking a Waiver of the
Renewable Fuel Standard'' that was published in the Federal Register on
August 30, 2012. EPA has received several requests for an extension of
the comment period and, in response, has decided to allow an additional
fifteen days, to October 11, 2012, for the submission of public
comment.

Dates: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before October
11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0632, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0632, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. 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-
2012-0632. 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dallas Burkholder, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency,
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (734)
214-4050; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: In a Federal Register Notice dated August 30, 2012 (77
FR 52715), EPA provided notice of its receipt of requests for a waiver
of required volumes of renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard
(``RFS'') program, and invited public comment on those requests. As
more fully described in the August 30, 2012 Notice, Governors of
several States have submitted separate requests for an RFS waiver.
Section 211(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act allows the Administrator of
the EPA to waive the national volume requirements of the renewable fuel
standard program in whole or in part if implementation of those
requirements would severely harm the economy or environment of a State,
a region, or the United States, or if the Administrator determines that
there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel.
    Extension of Comment Period: EPA received requests for an extension
of the comment period from various parties. After considering these
comments, EPA has determined that an extension of the comment period
would appropriately provide the public additional time to provide
meaningful comment on the Renewable Fuel Standard waiver requests. Any
such extension, however, must be balanced against the need to make a
timely decision with respect to the waiver requests. EPA believes that
an additional 15 days is an appropriate amount of time to balance these
needs. Accordingly, the public comment period on the RFS waiver
requests is extended to October 11, 2012. EPA does not currently
anticipate that it will provide any further extension of the comment
period.

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2012-22969 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35537-35538]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2028-000]

SR Hazlehurst, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
SR Hazlehurst, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 27, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number

field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13,
2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 6, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12516 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Calabrese, David"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>12/10/2007 05:21 PM	To
	"Amy Larkin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	Jeff Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Julius
Banks/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Kert Davies"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
"Lisa Finaldi"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	bcc

	Subject
	RE: Hydrocarbons and energy efficiency

Amy

Attached is a study that examines the energy efficiency effect of HC as
compared to HFCs and finds an energy penalty.

Best regards

Dave

David B. Calabrese, Esq.
Vice President
Government Relations
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 402
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> x310
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).
If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised you have
received this message in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited.  Please notify
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and destroy all copies
of this message and any attachments.

From: Amy Larkin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:02 PM
To: Calabrese, David; 'Dave Godwin'
Cc: 'Jeff Cohen'; 'margaret sheppard'; 'julius banks'; 'Kert Davies';
'Lisa Finaldi'
Subject: Hydrocarbons and energy efficiency

David,
I think you’re right that the initial paper I sent you was perhaps too
theoretical.  Attached is a paper more to the point.

I hope we’re able to discuss this in DC next week.
Best,
Amy

Amy Larkin
Director, Greenpeace Solutions
75 West End Ave., #P31B
New York, NY 10023
(646) 522-0291
www.greenpeaceusa.org/solutions

From: Calabrese, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:49 PM
To: Amy Larkin; Dave Godwin
Cc: Jeff Cohen; margaret sheppard; julius banks; Kert Davies; Lisa Finaldi
Subject: RE: Hydrocarbons and energy efficiency

Amy

I will take a look at this, however, at first glance I don’t see how this
is conclusive evidence that HCs are more efficient than HFCs for
Refrigerators, etc… This report would appear to examine the issue from a
more generic standpoint, and doesn’t look at these substances as they are
used in actual products (R/Fs, etc…), which is how a proper evaluation
would have to be done.

Best regards,

Dave

David B. Calabrese, Esq.
Vice President
Government Relations
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 402
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> x310
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).
If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised you have
received this message in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited.  Please notify
the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and destroy all copies
of this message and any attachments.

From: Amy Larkin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 10:14 AM
To: Calabrese, David; Dave Godwin
Cc: Jeff Cohen; margaret sheppard; julius banks; 'Kert Davies'; 'Lisa
Finaldi'
Subject: Hydrocarbons and energy efficiency

Dear David and Dave,

Yesterday, in a phone call with David Calabrese of AHAM, he mentioned that
there is an "energy penalty" for hydrocarbon refrigerators.  I'm
forwarding some information which clearly disputes this.  If any of you
have information that contradicts this, I would very much like to review
it.

I've attached a paper out of the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering at the University of South Wales, entitled "Why Hydrocarbons
Save Energy".

Also, please reference the website below:
http://www.energy-plus.org/english/news
It outlines the most efficient refrigerators on the European market in
2004 (those labeled A+ and A++).
There were 85 A++ models (all hydrocarbon) and 769 of the 781 A+ models
were also hydrocarbon.

In addition, my European colleagues have anecdotal reports from the
largest manufacturers and retailers who indicate that the introduction of
hydrocarbons have given their refrigeration fleets an extra boost in
energy efficiency.

I hope we're able to review this and any other concerns next week in DC.
Best,
Amy

Amy Larkin
Director, Greenpeace Solutions
75 West End Ave., #P31B
New York, NY 10023
(646) 522-0291
www.greenpeaceusa.org/solutions

----- Message from "Hoekstra, Pete"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>on Mon, 10 Dec
2007 17:17:55 -0500 -----
To:	"Calabrese, David"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:	HFC-245fa vs HC blowing agents for refrigerators
Dave;

Please find the most recent research comparing HFC and HC foam blowing
agents attached.

In short;
-          annual refrigerator energy use is the largest contributor to
the CO2 emissions total
-          in identical refrigerators, HFC foam uses 12% less energy than
HC foam
-          HC has 3% greater outgassing from the foam over time
-          With outgassing, HFC foam uses 15% less energy than HC over time
-          US factory safety regulations for use of flammable gases are
significantly more stringent in the US
-          Europe has placed a high value on direct greenhouse gas
emissions
-          The limited analysis total CO2 emissions shows the amount of
HFC advantage varies based on details of de-commissioning of the foam

Hope this is helpful

Pete Hoekstra
Vice President, Technical Services
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
Suite 402
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036
Tel.<PHONE_NUMBER> x317
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
www.aham.org


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81863-81868]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32665]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0697-201072; FRL-9244-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of Alabama, through
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), to EPA on
August 17, 2010, for parallel processing. ADEM submitted the final
version of this SIP revision on December 14, 2010. The SIP revision
incorporates updates to ADEM's air quality regulations impacting the
regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) under Alabama's New Source Review
(NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
Specifically, the SIP revision establishes appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Alabama's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions. The change is necessary because
without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply at the 100
or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels otherwise provided under the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act), which would overwhelm Alabama's permitting
resources. EPA is approving Alabama's December 14, 2010, SIP revision
because the Agency has made the determination that this SIP revision is
in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations, including regulations
pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs. Additionally, EPA is responding
to adverse comments received on EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed
approval of Alabama's August 17, 2010, draft SIP revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective January 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0697. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for further information. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For

information regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams,
Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for today's final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of today's final action?
IV. When is today's action effective?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for today's final action?

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's final action on
the Alabama SIP.\1\ Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \5\ Taken together, these actions established
regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they
take effect on January 2, 2011, will subject GHGs emitted from
stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability
of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 13, 2010, EPA finalized a ``SIP Call'' that
would require those states with SIPs that do not authorize PSD
permitting for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such
authority. 75 FR 77698. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed a
federal implementation plan (FIP) that would apply in any state that
is unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). Because Alabama's SIP already authorizes
Alabama to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Alabama is not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \5\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 17, 2010, in response to the Tailoring Rule and earlier
GHG-related EPA rules, ADEM submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Alabama SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to Alabama's PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Subsequently, on November 5, 2010, EPA published a proposed
rulemaking to approve Alabama's August 17, 2010, SIP revision under
parallel processing. 75 FR 68285. Specifically, Alabama's August 17,
2010, draft SIP revision includes changes to ADEM's Air Quality
Regulations, 335-3-14-.04, Air Permits Authorizing Construction in
Clean Air Areas--Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting
(PSD). The changes to ADEM's Rule 335-3-14-.04 Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting (PSD) address the thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability. Detailed background information and EPA's
rationale for the proposed approval are provided in EPA's November 5,
2010, Federal Register notice.
    EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed approval was contingent upon
Alabama providing a final SIP revision that was substantively the same
as the revision proposed for approval by EPA in the November 5, 2010,
proposed rulemaking. 75 FR 68285. Alabama provided its final SIP
revision on December 14, 2010. There were no changes between Alabama's
August 17, 2010, draft SIP revision and the final SIP revision which
was provided on December 14, 2010.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the November 5, 2010, proposed
rulemaking to approve revisions to Alabama's SIP. One set of comments,
provided by the Sierra Club, was in favor of EPA's November 5, 2010,
proposed action. The other set of comments, provided by the Air
Permitting Forum, raised concerns with final action on EPA's November
5, 2010, proposed action. A full set of the comments provided by both
the Sierra Club and Air Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as
``the Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action.
A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided
below.
    Generally, the adverse comments fall into four categories. First,
the Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by
GHGs. Second, the Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
the November 5, 2010, proposal describing EPA's previously announced
intention to narrow its prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that
sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
thresholds will not be obligated under federal law to obtain PSD
permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The
Commenter explains that the planned SIP approval narrowing action ``is
illegal.'' Third, the Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements. Lastly,
the Commenter states: ``EPA should explicitly state in any final rule
that the continued enforceability of these provisions in the Alabama
SIP is limited to the extent to which the federal requirements remain
enforceable.'' EPA's response to these four categories of comments is
provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be
triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the Commenter reiterates EPA's
statement that without the Tailoring Rule thresholds, PSD will apply as
of January 2, 2011, to all stationary sources that emit or have the
potential to emit, depending on the source category, either 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year. The Commenter also reiterates EPA's statement
that beginning January 2, 2011, a source owner proposing to construct
any new major source that emits at or higher than the GHG applicability
levels, or modify any existing major source in a way that would
increase GHG emissions, would need to obtain a PSD permit that
addresses these emissions before construction could begin. In raising
concerns with the two aforementioned statements, the Commenter states:
``No area in the State of Alabama has been designated attainment or
unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is no national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs cannot
trigger PSD permitting.'' The Commenter notes that it made this
argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring Rule
and other related GHG rulemakings. The Commenter attached those
previously submitted comments to its comments on the proposed
rulemaking related to this action. Finally, the Commenter states that
``EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now interpreting the
Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow Alabama to rescind
that portion of its rules that would allow GHGs to trigger PSD.''
    Response 1: EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all
pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants,
in

earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD program, and EPA has
not re-opened that issue in this rulemaking. In an August 7, 1980,
rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712, and 45 FR 52735, EPA
stated that a ``major stationary source'' was one which emitted ``any
air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' at or above the
specified numerical thresholds; and defined a ``major modification,''
in general, as a physical or operational change that increased
emissions of ``any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' by
more than an amount that EPA variously termed as de minimis or
significant. In addition, in EPA's NSR Reform rule at 67 FR 80186 and
67 FR 80240 (December 31, 2002), EPA added to the PSD regulations the
new definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' (currently codified at 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)); noted that EPA added this
term based on a request from a commenter to ``clarify which pollutants
are covered under the PSD program;'' and explained that in addition to
criteria pollutants for which a NAAQS has been established, ``[t]he PSD
program applies automatically to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which
would include final promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance
standard] applicable to a previously unregulated pollutant.'' Id. at 67
FR 80240 and 67 FR 80264. Among other things, the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' includes ``[a]ny pollutant that otherwise
is subject to regulation under the Act.'' See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); see also id. 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)(iv).
    In any event, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise
that PSD requirements are not triggered for GHGs when GHGs become
subject to regulation as of January 2, 2011. As just noted, this has
been well established and discussed in connection with prior EPA
actions, including, most recently, the Johnson Reconsideration and the
Tailoring Rule. In addition, EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed
rulemaking notice provides the general basis for the Agency's rationale
that GHG (while not a NAAQS pollutant) can trigger PSD permitting
requirements. The November 5, 2010, notice also refers the reader to
the preamble to the Tailoring Rule for further information on this
rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA addressed at length the comment that
PSD can be triggered only by pollutants subject to the NAAQS, and
concluded such an interpretation of the Act would contravene Congress'
unambiguous intent. See 75 FR 31560-31562. Further discussion of EPA's
rationale for concluding that PSD requirements are triggered by non-
NAAQS pollutants such as GHGs appears in the Tailoring Rule Response-
to-Comments document (``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments''), pp.
34-41; and in EPA's response to motions for a stay filed in the
litigation concerning those rules (``EPA's Response to Motions for
Stay,'' Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, DC Cir. No. 09-
1322 (and consolidated cases)), at pp. 47-59, and are incorporated by
reference here. These documents have been placed in the docket for
today's action.
    Comment 2: The Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
which EPA describes its previously announced intention to narrow its
prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that sources with GHG emissions
that are less than the Tailoring Rule's thresholds will not be
obligated under federal law to obtain PSD permits during any gap
between when GHG permitting requirements go into effect and when the
SIP is revised to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The
Commenter explains that narrowing ``is illegal.'' Further, the
Commenter states that ``EPA has not proposed to narrow Alabama's SIP
approval here and any such proposal must be explicit and address the
action specifically made with respect to Alabama. EPA cannot sidestep
these important procedural requirements.''
    Response 2: While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion
that the narrowing approach discussed in EPA's Tailoring Rule is
illegal, the narrowing approach was not the subject of EPA's November
5, 2010, proposed rulemaking to approve Alabama's August 17, 2010,
draft SIP revision. Rather the narrowing approach was the subject of a
separate rulemaking, and any action to use this approach for Alabama's
SIP will be considered and finalized in an action separate from today's
rulemaking. In today's final action, EPA is taking action to approve a
SIP revision submitted by Alabama, and is not otherwise narrowing its
approval of prior submitted and approved provisions in the Alabama SIP.
Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing approach is not at issue in
this rulemaking.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements.
Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory and executive
orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive Order 13132
(Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions that EPA has never
analyzed the costs and benefits associated with triggering PSD for
stationary sources in Alabama, much less nationwide.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review
requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of Alabama's August
17, 2010, SIP revision, this action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, EPA
approval, in-and-of-itself, does not impose any new information
collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would
require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, this SIP approval will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, beyond that which would be
required by the state law requirements, so a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required under the RFA. Accordingly, this rule is
appropriately certified under section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as
this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, such that it would be subject to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally, this action does not have
federalism implications that would make Executive Order 13132
applicable because it merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
    In sum, today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision,
approving state law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. To the extent these comments are directed more
generally to the application of the statutory and executive order
reviews to the required regulation of GHGs under PSD programs, these
comments are irrelevant to the approval of state law in today's action.
However, EPA provided an extensive response to similar comments in
promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the
sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled ``VII. Comments on Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews,'' 75 FR 31601-31603, and ``VI. What are
the economic impacts of the final rule?,'' 75 FR 31595-31601. EPA also
notes that today's action does not in-and-of itself trigger the
regulation

of GHGs. To the contrary, by putting in place higher PSD applicability
thresholds for GHGs than would otherwise be in effect under the Act,
this rulemaking, as well as EPA's Tailoring Rule, provides relief to
smaller GHG-emitting sources that would otherwise be subject to PSD
permitting requirements for their GHG emissions.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that ``[i]f EPA proceeds with this
action, it must condition approval on the continued validity of its
determination that PSD can be triggered by or is applicable to GHGs.''
Further, the Commenter remarks on the ongoing litigation in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Specifically, regarding EPA's
determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs or is applicable to
GHGs, the Commenter mentions that ``EPA should explicitly state in any
final rule that continued enforceability of these provisions in the
Alabama SIP is limited to the extent to which the federal requirements
remain enforceable.'' The Commenter notes that if a stay is issued,
these requirements should also be stayed. Additionally, the Commenter
notes the following statement in Alabama's proposed rulemaking: ``It is
the opinion of ADEM that the PSD program is not the appropriate vehicle
for regulating GHG emissions. ADEM is taking this action to insure
continuance of primacy of permitting authority for the State of Alabama
and to alleviate some of the ``absurd results'' of EPA's previous GHG
regulatory actions. If future Congressional or judicial action results
in GHGs not being regulated under the PSD program, ADEM intends to
undertake a rulemaking action to delete the PSD permitting thresholds
for GHGs from its regulations.''
    Response 4: EPA believes that it is most appropriate to take
actions that are consistent with the Federal regulations that are in
place at the time the action is being taken. To the extent that any
changes to Federal regulations related to today's action result from
pending legal challenges or other actions, EPA will process appropriate
SIP revisions in accordance with the procedures provided in the Act and
EPA's regulations. It appears that ADEM acknowledges, by their
statement that they ``intend to undertake a rulemaking action to delete
the PSD permitting thresholds for GHGs from its regulations,'' that a
future SIP revision may be necessary. EPA notes that in an order dated
December 10, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit denied motions to stay EPA's regulatory actions related to
GHGs. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322,
10-1073, 10-1092 (and consolidated cases), Slip Op. at 3 (DC Cir.
December 10, 2010) (order denying stay motions).

III. What is the effect of today's final action?

    Final approval of Alabama's December 14, 2010, SIP revision will
put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set
forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), ensuring
that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not
be subject to permitting requirements when these requirements begin
applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA, EPA is approving the changes made in Alabama's December 14, 2010,
final SIP revision into Alabama's SIP.
    The changes to Alabama's SIP-approved PSD program that EPA is
approving today are to Alabama's rules which have been formatted to
conform to Alabama's SIP-approved PSD regulations 335-3-14-.04, Air
Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD), but in substantive content
the rules that address the Tailoring Rule provisions are the same as
the federal rules. EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed
change to Alabama's SIP-approved PSD regulations 335-3-14-.04, Air
Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD) and has determined that the
proposed change is consistent with (and substantively the same as) the
change to the federal provisions made by EPA's Tailoring Rule.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that the December 14, 2010, revision to
Alabama's SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g.,
Tailoring Rule, at 75 FR 31561.

IV. When is today's action effective?

    EPA is making the effective date of today's final action the same
day as Alabama's effective date for its rulemaking. In accordance with
5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this action to
become effective on January 18, 2011. This is because a delayed
effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of Alabama's changes to
its PSD regulations to establish appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability with respect to new or modified GHG-
emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule, thereby
relieving the State from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise
apply to it. The January 18, 2011, effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not
create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would
need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule
relieves the sources within Alabama from considering the lower
emissions thresholds for GHG permitting purposes. For these reasons,
EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become
effective January 18, 2011.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Alabama's December 14, 2010,
SIP revision which includes to Alabama's air quality regulation 335-3-
14-.04, Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD). Specifically,
Alabama's December 14, 2010, SIP revision establishes appropriate
emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability with respect to
new or modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with EPA's Tailoring
Rule. EPA has made the determination that the December 14, 2010, SIP
revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA
regulations including regulations pertaining to PSD permitting for
GHGs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office

of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 28, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2010.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. In Sec.  52.50 (c) the table is amended by revising the following
entry for ``335-3-14-.04'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  State
          State citation                  Title/subject         effective     EPA approval date     Explanation
                                                                   date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                        Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 335-3-14-.04..............  Air Permits Authorizing      1/18/2011  12/29/2010..........
                                     Construction in Clean                  [Insert citation of
                                     Air Areas [:prevention                  publication].
                                     of Significant
                                     Deterioration (PSD)].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-32665 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


         EPA/HQ Summary  -  Meeting with Integrated Liner Technologies

Attendees

Integrated Liner Tech:		Lenny Diaz, Kevin Frake

Venable:			Doug Green, John Mavretich

EPA/HQ: 		Jessica Young, Kristin Fitzgerald, Drew Lausch, Josh Smeraldi

Date:				June 16, 2016

Location:  			EPA/HQ  -  Potomac Yard

Summary

EPA HQ met with representatives of Integrated Liner Technologies (ILT) and Venable. ILT manufactures caps and septa for containers, including smart septa with embedded radio frequency identification (RFID) tags. ILT expressed concern that the hazardous waste pharmaceuticals proposed rule was unclear about whether RFID technology would be considered a means of electronic tracking and asked EPA to be more specific in the final rule.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74000-74002]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1156; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
Route T-364; Kotzebue, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish United States Area
Navigation (RNAV) route T-364 in the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK in
support of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for
the state of Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1156; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-28 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information,
you can contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email: [email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1156; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-28) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1156; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-28''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The
project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air Traffic
Service route structure using satellite based navigation Development of
new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will enhance safety,
increase efficiency and access, and will provide en route continuity
that is not subject to the restrictions associated with ground based
airway navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the
existing Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct replacement (i.e.,
overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or lower Minimum En route
Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite System Minimum En route
Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the colored airway with a
T-route in an optimized but similar geographic area, while retaining
similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no route structure (T-route)
restored in that area because the value was determined to be
insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to establish RNAV
route T-364 between the COGNU, AK, waypoint (WP) northwest of Wales, AK
to the Kotzebue, AK, (OTZ) VHF Omnidirectional Radar/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME). The proposed route would provide an alternate
airway for Colored airways, B-8 and B-2, in anticipation of the future
decommissioning of the Hotham, AK, (HHM) and the Shishmaref, AK, (SHH)
NDBs. Furthermore, the proposed route would allow for a lower GNSS MEA,
while providing connectivity to instrument approach procedures at Wales
Airport, Alaska.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish
RNAV route T-364 in the vicinity of Kotzebue, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska. The proposed route is described below.
    T-364: The FAA proposes to establish T-364 between the COGNU, AK WP
and the Kotzebue, AK, (OTZ) VOR/DME.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,

``Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures'' prior to any FAA
final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-364 COGNU, AK to Kotzebue, AK [New]
COGNU, AK                        WP                 (Lat. 65[deg]48'29.23'' N, long. 167[deg]50'06.18'' W)
HIPIV, AK                        WP                 (Lat. 66[deg]15'29.11'' N, long. 166[deg]03'23.59'' W)
Kotzebue, AK (OTZ)               VOR/DME            (Lat. 66[deg]53'08.46'' N, long. 162[deg]32'23.77'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 22, 2021.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-28240 Filed 12-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P