[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48927-48929]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29743; File No. 812-13860]

RidgeWorth Funds and RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc.; Notice
of Application

August 3, 2011.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.

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

Summary of the Application:  Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements
without shareholder approval.

Applicants:  RidgeWorth Funds (the ``Trust'') and RidgeWorth Capital
Management, Inc. (the ``Adviser'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 20, 2011 and
amended on June 29, 2011.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing:  An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 29, 2011 and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, 3333 Piedmont Road,
NE., Suite 1500, Atlanta, GA 30305-1740.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876, or Dalia Osman Blass, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Trust is a Massachusetts business trust registered under the
Act as an open-end management investment company and offers multiple
series (each a ``Fund'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to the
application also apply to (a) All other existing or future open-end
management investment companies or series thereof that (i) are
advised by the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by or
under common control with the Adviser or its successors (each such
entity included in the term ``Adviser''), (ii) are registered under
the Act, (iii) use the manager of managers structure (as described
in the application), and (iv) comply with the terms and conditions
in the application (such companies or series included in the term
``Funds''); and (b) the Adviser. Each existing entity that currently
intends to rely on the requested order is named as an Applicant. Any
existing or future entity that relies on the order in the future
will do so only in accordance with the terms and conditions in the
application. If the name of any Fund relying on the requested relief
contains the name of a Subadviser (defined below), the name
``RidgeWorth'' or other name being used by the Adviser will precede
the name of the Subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser, a Georgia corporation with its principal office in
Atlanta, serves as investment adviser to the Funds and is registered
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'')
pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (``Advisory
Agreement''). The Adviser is a wholly owned subsidiary of SunTrust
Banks, Inc. The Advisory Agreement was approved by the board of
trustees of the Trust (``Board''),\2\, including a majority of the
trustees who are not ``interested persons'' (as defined in section
2(a)(19) of the Act) of the Trust or the Adviser (the ``Independent
Trustees'') and was approved by the initial shareholder of each Fund in
the manner required by sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act and rule 18f-2
thereunder. With respect to new Funds offered in the future, the
Advisory Agreement will be approved by the initial shareholder of the
Fund in the manner required by sections 15(a) and (c) of the Act and
rule 18f-2 thereunder. Applicants are not seeking any exemptions from
the provisions of the Act with respect to the

requirements that the Advisory Agreement be approved by the Board and
the shareholders of the relevant Funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Board is also the board of each individual Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Adviser, subject to the oversight and authority of the
Board, is responsible for furnishing the overall investment program for
each Fund and providing continuous investment management for each
Fund's assets pursuant to the Advisory Agreement. For the investment
management services that it provides to each Fund, the Adviser receives
the fee specified in the Advisory Agreement from each Fund based on the
Fund's average daily net assets. The Advisory Agreement permits the
Adviser to retain one or more unaffiliated investment subadvisers (each
a ``Subadviser''), at the Adviser's own expense, subject to the
approval of the Fund's Board, including approval by a majority of its
Independent Trustees, for the purpose of managing the investment of the
assets of one or more Funds.\3\ Each Subadviser will be registered as
an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. Each Subadviser will be
responsible, subject to the supervision of the Adviser and the Board,
for the purchase, retention and sale of securities for the applicable
Fund. The Adviser will establish an investment program for each Fund
and will select, supervise and evaluate the Subadvisers who make the
day-to-day investment decisions for the Fund. The Adviser will evaluate
and recommend Subadvisers to the Board and will monitor and evaluate
each Subadviser's investment programs, performance and compliance. The
Adviser will also recommend to the Board whether investment advisory
agreements with a Subadviser (``Subadvisory Agreements'') should be
renewed, modified or terminated. The Adviser will compensate each
Subadviser out of the fee paid to the Adviser under the relevant Fund's
Advisory Agreement. Neither the Trust nor any Fund will be responsible
for paying subadvisory fees to any subadviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Adviser has entered into subadvisory agreements with
subadvisers that are ``affiliated persons'' (as defined in section
2(a)(3) of the Act) of the Trust, a Fund or of the Adviser (other
than by reason of serving as a subadviser to one or more of the
Funds) (``Affiliated Subadvisers'') to assist with monitoring and/or
management of certain markets with which the Affiliated Subadvisers
have expertise. The requested relief does not apply with respect to
existing or future Affiliated Subadvisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
Board approval, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, to
enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without
shareholder approval.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except pursuant to a written contract that has been
approved by a vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series investment company affected by a matter must
approve the matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets the necessary
standards for the reasons discussed below.
    3. Applicants believe that the shareholders expect the Adviser and
the Board to select the portfolio manager or Subadviser for a Fund that
is best suited to achieve the Fund's investment objective. Applicants
assert that, from the perspective of the investor, the role of the
Subadvisers with respect to the Funds utilizing the manager of managers
structure is substantially equivalent to the role of the individual
portfolio managers employed by the traditional investment company
advisory firms. In the absence of exemptive relief from section 15(a)
of the Act, when a new Subadviser is proposed for retention by a Fund
or the Trust on behalf of one or more of the Funds, shareholders would
be required to approve the Subadvisory Agreement with that Subadviser.
Similarly, if an existing Subadvisory Agreement were to be amended in
any material respect (e.g., an increase in the subadvisory fee),
approval by the shareholders of the affected Fund would be required. In
addition, a Fund would be prohibited from continuing to retain an
existing Subadviser whose Subadvisory Agreement had been ``assigned''
as a result of a change of control of the Subadviser unless shareholder
approval had been obtained. Applicants contend that this process would
be time-intensive, costly and slow and, in the case of a poorly
performing Subadviser or one whose management team had left,
potentially harmful to a Fund and its shareholders. Applicants also
note that the Advisory Agreement is and will remain fully subject to
the requirements of section 15(a) of the Act and, where applicable,
rule 18f-2 thereunder, including the requirement for shareholder
voting.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the
application, the operation of the Fund in the manner described in the
application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding
voting securities, as defined in the Act or, in the case of a Fund
whose public shareholders purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus
containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below, by the
initial shareholder(s) before offering shares of that Fund to the
public.
    2. Each Fund that relies on the order requested in the application
will disclose in its prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of
any order granted pursuant to the application. Each Fund relying on the
order requested in the application will hold itself out to the public
as utilizing the manager of managers structure described in the
application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser
has ultimate responsibility (subject to oversight by the Board) to
oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination, and
replacement.
    3. Within 90 days of the hiring of a new Subadviser, the affected
Fund shareholders will be furnished all information about the new
Subadviser that would be included in a proxy statement. To meet this
obligation, the Fund will provide shareholders of the affected Fund
within 90 days of hiring a new Subadviser with an information statement
meeting the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22
of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
    4. The Adviser will not enter into a subadvisory agreement with any
Affiliated Subadviser without such agreement, including the
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees will be placed within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    6. Whenever a subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees,

will make a separate finding, reflected in the applicable Board
minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund and its
shareholders, and does not involve a conflict of interest from which
the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate
advantage.
    7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each
Fund that is subadvised, including overall supervisory responsibility
for the general management and investment of the Fund's assets, and,
subject to review and approval of the Board, will: (i) Set each Fund's
overall investment strategies; (ii) evaluate, select and recommend
Subadvisers to manage all or a part of a Fund's assets; (iii) allocate
and, when appropriate, reallocate a Fund's assets among one or more
Subadvisers; (iv) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadvisers;
and (v) implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the
Subadvisers comply with the relevant Fund's investment objective,
policies, and restrictions.
    8. No trustee or officer of the Trust or a Fund, or director,
manager or officer of the Adviser, will own, directly or indirectly
(other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled
by such person), any interest in a Subadviser, except for (a) ownership
of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled
by, or is under common control with the Adviser, or (b) ownership of
less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or
debt of any publicly traded company that is either a Subadviser or an
entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with
a Subadviser.
    9. In the event the Commission adopts a rule under the Act
providing substantially similar relief to that in the order requested
in the application, the requested order will expire on the effective
date of that rule.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20102 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36284]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14257]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69736; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 104 To Codify Certain
Traditional Trading Floor Functions That May Be Performed by Designated
Market Makers, To Make Exchange Systems Available to DMMs That Would
Provide DMMs With Certain Market Information, To Amend the Exchange's
Rules Governing the Ability of DMMs To Provide Market Information to
Floor Brokers, and To Make Conforming Amendments to Other Rules

June 11, 2013.
    On April 9, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend NYSE Rule 104. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on April 29, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
two comment letters on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69427 (April 23,
2013), 78 FR 25118. On April 18, 2013, the Exchange filed Partial
Amendment No. 1 to the proposal. In Partial Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange filed the Exhibit 3 which was not included in the April 9,
2013 filing.
    \4\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission,
from Daniel Buenza, Lecturer in Management, London School of
Economics and Yuval Millo, Professor of Social Studies of Finance,
University of Leicester, dated May 20, 2013; Letter to Commission,
from James J. Angel, Ph.D., CFA, Associate Professor of Finance,
Georgetown University, McDonough School of Business, dated May 14,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is June 13, 2013. The Commission is extending
this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, which would
amend NYSE Rule 104, and the potential issues raised by this proposal.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates July 26, 2013 as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NYSE-2013-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14257 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                 40 CFR Part 80

                        EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL_XXXX-X

                                 RIN 2060-AR07

 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is issuing a proposed rule that identifies additional fuel pathways that EPA has determined meet the biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel or cellulosic biofuel lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements specified in Clean Air Act section 211(o), the Renewable Fuel Standard Program, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).  This proposed rule describes EPA's evaluation of biofuels produced from camelina oil, energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass; it also includes an evaluation of renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstocks, as well as biodiesel from esterification, and clarifies our definition of renewable diesel.

      This proposed rule adds these pathways to Table 1 to § 80.1426 as pathways which have been determined to meet one or more of the GHG reduction thresholds specified in CAA 211(o), and assigns each pathway a corresponding D-Code.  It allows producers or importers of fuel produced pursuant to these pathways to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), providing that the fuel meets the other requirements specified in the RFS regulations to qualify it as renewable fuel.

DATES:    Written comments must be received by [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].  A request for a public hearing must be received by [Insert date 15 days from date of publication in the Federal Register].

 ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542, by mail to Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.  Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Vincent Camobreco, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (MC6401A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.   Why is EPA Issuing a Proposed Rule?

 	This document proposes to take action to identify additional qualifying renewable fuel pathways under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.  We have published a direct final rule that describes our rationale for identifying these additional fuel pathways, including GHG lifecycle analyses, in the "Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

	If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment or a hearing request on a distinct provision of this rulemaking, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which portion of the rule is being withdrawn. Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or section of today's rule not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out in the direct final rule. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed 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.

 II.   Does This Action Apply to Me?

       Entities potentially affected by this action are those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. Regulated categories and entities affected by this action include:

Category
NAICS[1] Codes
SIC[2] Codes
Examples of Potentially Regulated Entities
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
Industry
324110
325193
325199
424690
424710
424720
454319
2911
2869
2869
5169
5171
5172
5989
Petroleum Refineries
Ethyl alcohol manufacturing
Other basic organic chemical manufacturing
Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers
Petroleum bulk stations and terminals
Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers
Other fuel dealers
[1] North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
[2] Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

       This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria of Part 80, subparts D, E and F of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any question regarding applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

 III. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

 	A.  Submitting information claimed as CBI.  Do not submit information you claim as CBI to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.  Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI.  For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI).  In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.  Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

 	B.  Tips for Preparing Your Comments.  When submitting comments, remember to:
       Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
       Follow directions - The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
       Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
       Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
       If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
       Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
       Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
       Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

 	C.  Docket Copying Costs. You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials, as provided in 40 CFR part 2.

 IV. Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program

      EPA is issuing a proposed rule to identify in the RFS regulations additional renewable fuel production pathways that we have determined meet the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements of the RFS program.  This proposed rule describes EPA's evaluation of:

   Camelina oil (new feedstock)
      * Biodiesel and renewable diesel (including jet fuel and heating oil)  --  qualifying as biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel
      * Naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)  --  qualifying as advanced biofuel

   Energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass cellulosic biomass (new feedstocks)
      * Ethanol, renewable diesel (including renewable jet fuel and heating oil), and naphtha  --  qualifying as cellulosic biofuel

   Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock (new fuel types)
      * Produced from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings, tree residue, annual cover crops, and cellulosic components of separated yard waste,  separated food waste, and separated municipal solid waste (MSW)
      * Using the following processes  --  all utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources  --  qualifying as cellulosic biofuel:
            o Thermochemical pyrolysis
            o Thermochemical gasification
            o Biochemical direct fermentation
            o Biochemical fermentation with catalytic upgrading
            o Any other process that uses biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy sources

   Esterification (new production process)
      * Process used to produce biodiesel from soy bean oil, oil from annual covercrops, algal oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, non-food grade corn oil, Canola/rapeseed oil, and camelina oil  -  qualifying as biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel

      This proposed rule adds these pathways to Table 1 to § 80.1426 and assigns each pathway one or more D-Codes.

      Determining whether a fuel pathway satisfies the CAA's lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds for renewable fuels requires a comprehensive evaluation of the lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel as compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions of the baseline gasoline or diesel fuel that it replaces.  As mandated by CAA section 211(o), the GHG emissions assessments must evaluate the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes) related to the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production, distribution, and use by the ultimate consumer.

      In examining the full lifecycle GHG impacts of renewable fuels for the RFS program, EPA considers the following:
   * Feedstock production  -  based on agricultural sector models that include direct and indirect impacts of feedstock production
   * Fuel production  -  including process energy requirements, impacts of any raw materials used in the process, and benefits from co-products produced.
   * Fuel and feedstock distribution  -  including impacts of transporting feedstock from production to use, and transport of the final fuel to the consumer.
   * Use of the fuel  -  including combustion emissions from use of the fuel in a vehicle.
      Many of the pathways evaluated in this proposal rely on a comparison to the lifecycle GHG analysis work that was done as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Final Rule, published March 26, 2010.

      More information on the different pathways evaluated is included below.  For additional information on our GHG lifecycle analyses for this proposal, as well as the text of the proposed regulatory changes, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

	Camelina:  Current information suggests that camelina has limited niche markets and will be produced on land that would otherwise remain fallow.  Therefore, increased production of camelina-based renewable fuel is not expected to result in significant land use change emissions.  For the purposes of this proposed analysis, EPA is projecting there will be no land use emissions associated with camelina production for use as a renewable fuel feedstock.

      Taking into account the assumption of no land use change emissions when camelina is used to produce renewable fuel, and considering that other sources of GHG emissions related to camelina biodiesel or renewable diesel production have comparable GHG emissions to biodiesel from soybean oil, we are proposing that camelina-based biodiesel and renewable diesel should be treated in the same manner as soy-based biodiesel and renewable diesel in qualifying as biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel for purposes of RIN generation since the GHG emission performance of the camelina-based fuels will be at least as good and in some respects better than that modeled for fuels made from soybean oil.  EPA found as part of the Renewable Fuel Standard final rulemaking that soybean biodiesel resulted in a 57% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the baseline petroleum diesel fuel.  Furthermore, approximately 80%of the lifecycle impacts from soybean biodiesel were from land use change emissions which are assumed to be not significant for the camelina pathway considered.  Thus, EPA is proposing to include camelina oil as a potential feedstock under the same biodiesel and renewable diesel pathways for which soybean oil currently qualifies.  We are also proposing to include a pathway for jet fuel, naphtha, and LPG produced from camelina oil through hydrotreating.  This is based on the fact that our analysis shows that even when all of the co-products are used to generate RINs the lifecycle GHG emissions for RIN-generating co-products including diesel replacement fuel, jet fuel, naphtha and LPG produced from camelina oil will all meet the 50% GHG emissions reduction threshold.

      We are also proposing that two existing pathways for RIN generation in the RFS regulations that list "renewable diesel" as a fuel product produced through a hydrotreating process include jet fuel.  This applies to two pathways in Table 1 to §80.1426 of the RFS regulations which both list renewable diesel made from soy bean oil, oil from annual covercrops, algal oil, biogenic waste oils/fats/greases, or non-food grade corn oil using hydrotreating as a process.  We are proposing that if parties produce jet fuel from the hydrotreating process and co-process renewable biomass and petroleum they can generate advanced biofuel RINs (D code 5) for the jet fuel produced.  We are also proposing that if they do not co-process renewable biomass and petroleum they can generate biomass-based diesel RINs (D code 4) for the jet fuel produced.

	§ 80.1401 of the RFS regulations currently defines non-ester renewable diesel as a fuel that is not a mono-alkyl ester and which can be used in an engine designed to operate on conventional diesel fuel or be heating oil or jet fuel.  The reference to jet fuel in this definition was added by direct final rule dated May 10, 2010.  Table 1 to §80.1426 identifies approved fuel pathways by fuel type, feedstock source and fuel production processes.  The table, which was largely adopted as part of the March 26, 2010 RFS2 final rule, identifies jet fuel and renewable diesel as separate fuel types.  Accordingly, in light of the revised definition of renewable diesel enacted after the RFS2 rule, there is ambiguity regarding the extent to which references in Table 1 to "renewable diesel" include jet fuel.

      The original lifecycle analysis for the renewable diesel from hydrotreating pathways listed in Table 1 to §80.1426 was not based on producing jet fuel but rather other transportation diesel fuel products, namely a diesel fuel replacement.  As discussed in the direct final rule, the hydrotreating process can produce a mix of products including jet fuel, diesel, naphtha, LPG and propane.  Also, as discussed, there are differences in the process configured for maximum jet fuel production vs. the process maximized for diesel fuel production and the lifecycle results vary depending on what approach is used to consider co-products (i.e., the allocation or displacement approach).

      In cases where there are no pathways for generating RINs for the co-products from the hydrotreating process it would be appropriate to use the displacement method for capturing the credits of co-products produced.  This is the case for most of the original feedstocks included in Table 1 to §80.1426.  If the displacement approach is used when jet fuel is the primary product produced it results in lower emissions then the production maximized for diesel fuel production.  Therefore, since the hydrotreating process maximized for diesel fuel meets the 50% lifecycle GHG threshold for the feedstocks in question, the process maximized for jet fuel would also qualify.

      Thus, we are proposing that the references to "renewable diesel" in Table 1 include jet fuel, consistent with our regulatory definition of "non-ester renewable diesel," since doing so clarifies the existing regulations while ensuring that Table 1 to §80.1426 appropriately identifies fuel pathways that meet the GHG reduction thresholds associated with each pathway.

      We note that although the definition of renewable diesel includes jet fuel and heating oil, we are also proposing to list in Table 1 of section 80.1426 of the RFS2 regulations jet fuel and heating oil as specific co-products in addition to listing renewable diesel to assure clarity.  This clarification also pertains to all the feedstocks already included in Table 1 for renewable diesel.

      Energy grasses:  Based on our comparison of switchgrass and the three feedstocks considered here, EPA is proposing that cellulosic biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin portions of energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass has similar or better lifecycle GHG impacts than biofuel produced from the cellulosic biomass from switchgrass.  Our proposed analysis suggests that the three feedstocks considered have GHG impacts associated with growing and harvesting the feedstock that are similar to switchgrass.  Emissions from growing and harvesting energy cane are approximately 4 kg CO2eq/mmBtu higher than switchgrass, emissions from growing and harvesting giant reed are approximately 2 kg CO2eq/mmBtu lower than switchgrass, and emissions from growing and harvesting napiergrass are approximately 6 kg CO2eq/mmBtu higher than switchgrass.  These are small changes in the overall lifecycle, representing at most a 6% change in the energy grass lifecycle impacts in comparison to the petroleum fuel baseline.  Furthermore, the three feedstocks considered are expected to have similar or lower GHG emissions than switchgrass associated with other components of the biofuel lifecycle.

      As a hypothetical worst case, if the calculated increases in growing and harvesting the new feedstocks are incorporated into the lifecycle GHG emissions calculated for switchgrass, and other lifecycle components are projected as having similar GHG impacts to switchgrass (including land use change associated with switchgrass production), the overall lifecycle GHG reductions for biofuel produced from energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass still meet the 60% reduction threshold for cellulosic biofuel, the lowest being a 64% reduction (for napiergrass F-T diesel) compared to the petroleum baseline. We believe these are conservative estimates, as use of energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass as a feedstock is expected to have smaller land-use GHG impacts than switchgrass, due to their higher yields.

      Although this analysis assumes energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass biofuels produced for sale and use in the United States will most likely come from domestically produced feedstock, we also intend for the proposed pathways to cover energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass from other countries.  We do not expect incidental amounts of biofuels from feedstocks produced in other nations to impact our average GHG emissions.  Moreover, other countries most likely to be exporting energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass or biofuels produced from these feedstocks are likely to be major producers which typically use similar cultivars and farming techniques. Therefore, GHG emissions from producing biofuels with energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass grown in other countries should be similar to the GHG emissions we estimated for U.S. energy cane, giant reed, or napiergrass, though they could be slightly (and insignificantly) higher or lower.  For example, the renewable biomass provisions under the Energy Independence and Security Act would prohibit direct conversion of previously unfarmed land in other countries into cropland for energy grass-based renewable fuel production.  Furthermore, any energy grass production on existing cropland internationally would not be expected to have land use impacts beyond what was considered for switchgrass production.  Even if there were unexpected larger differences, EPA believes the small amounts of feedstock or fuel potentially coming from other countries will not impact our threshold analysis.

      Based on our assessment of switchgrass in the RFS2 final rule and this comparison of GHG emissions from switchgrass and energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass, we do not expect variations to be large enough to bring the overall GHG impact of fuel made from energy cane, giant reed or napier grass to come close to the 60% threshold for cellulosic biofuel. Therefore, EPA is proposing to include cellulosic biofuel produced from the cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin portions of energy cane, giant reed, and napiergrass under the same pathways for which cellulosic biomass from switchgrass qualifies under the RFS2 final rule.

      Renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock:  Three renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways were compared to baseline petroleum gasoline, using the same value for baseline gasoline as in the RFS2 final rule analysis.  The results of the proposed analysis indicate that the renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways result in a GHG emissions reduction of 65-129% or better compared to the gasoline fuel it would replace using corn stover as a feedstock.  Since the renewable gasoline and renewable gasoline blendstock pathways which use corn stover as a feedstock all exceed the 60% lifecycle GHG threshold requirements for cellulosic biofuel, and since these pathways capture the likely current technologies and since future technology improvements are likely to increase efficiency and lower GHG emissions, we are proposing that all processes producing renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock from corn stover can qualify if they fall in the following process characterizations:

   * Catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources
   * Gasification and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources
   * Direct fermentation utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources
   * Fermentation and upgrading utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only process energy sources
   * Any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only process energy sources
      As was the case for extending corn stover results to other feedstocks in the RFS2 final rule, we are proposing to extend these results to feedstocks with similar or lower GHG emissions profiles, including the following feedstocks:

   * Cellulosic biomass from crop residue, slash, pre-commercial thinnings and tree residue, annual cover crops;
   * Cellulosic components of separated yard waste;
   * Cellulosic components of separated food waste; and
   * Cellulosic components of separated MSW
      For more information on the reasoning for extension to these other feedstocks refer to the feedstock production and distribution section or the RFS2 rulemaking (75 FR 14793-14795).

      Based on these results, today's proposed rule includes pathways for the generation of cellulosic biofuel RINs for renewable gasoline or renewable gasoline blendstock produced by catalytic pyrolysis and upgrading, gasification and upgrading, direct fermentation, fermentation and upgrading, all utilizing natural gas, biogas, and/or biomass as the only on-site process energy sources or any process utilizing biogas and/or biomass as the only on-site energy sources, and using corn stover as a feedstock or the feedstocks noted above.  In order to qualify for RIN generation, the fuel must meet the other definitional criteria for renewable fuel (e.g., produced from renewable biomass, and used to reduce or replace petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel) specified in the Clean Air Act and the RFS regulations.

      Direct Esterification:  Using the same methodology as was used for the yellow grease modeling under RFS2, but using high energy and materials use assumptions and omitting the glycerin co-product credit, we estimate the GHG emissions reduction for the esterification of specified feedstocks with any level of FFA process is -71%.  Since the GHG threshold is at -50% for biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel, we believe that there is a large enough margin in the results to reasonably conclude that biodiesel using esterification of specified feedstocks with any level of FFA content meets the biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel 50% lifecycle GHG reduction  threshold.  Therefore, we are proposing to include the process "esterification" as an approved biodiesel production process in Table 1 to §40 CFR 80.1426.  In addition, consistent with the modeling conducted for RFS2, we are proposing to interpret the RFS regulations as they existed prior to today's rule as including a direct esterification process as part of the biodiesel pathways for which only "trans-esterification" was specifically referenced in Table 1 to §40 CFR 80.1426.

V.  Additional Changes to Listing of Available Pathways in Table 1 of 80.1426

      We are also proposing two changes to Table 1 to 80.1426 that were proposed on July 1, 2011(76 FR 38844).  The first change adds ID letters to pathways to facilitate references to specific pathways.  The second change adds "rapeseed" to the existing pathway for renewable fuel made from canola oil.
	On September 28, 2010, EPA published a "Supplemental Determination for Renewable Fuels Produced Under the Final RFS2 Program from Canola Oil" (FR Vol. 75, No. 187, pg 59622-59634).  In the July 1, 2011 NPRM (76 FR 38844) we proposed to clarify two aspects of the supplemental determination.  First we proposed to amend the regulatory language in Table 1 to §80.1426 to clarify that the currently-approved pathway for canola also applies more generally to rapeseed.  While "canola" was specifically described as the feedstock evaluated in the supplemental determination, we had not intended the supplemental determination to cover just those varieties or sources of rapeseed that are identified as canola, but to all rapeseed.  As described in the July 1, 2011 NPRM, we currently interpret the reference to "canola" in Table 1 to §80.1426 to include any rapeseed.  To eliminate ambiguity caused by the current language, however, we proposed to replace the term "canola" in that table with the term "canola/rapeseed".  Canola is a type of rapeseed.  While the term "canola" is often used in the American continent and in Australia, the term "rapeseed" is often used in Europe and other countries to describe the same crop.  We received no adverse comments on our July 1, 2011 proposal but are re-proposing it here in case we receive adverse comment in response to the direct final rule also published today.
      Second, we wish to clarify that although the GHG emissions of producing fuels from canola feedstock grown in the U.S. and Canada was specifically modeled as the most likely source of canola (or rapeseed) oil used for biodiesel produced for sale and use in the U.S., we also intended that the approved pathway cover canola/rapeseed oil from other countries, and we propose to interpret our regulations in that manner.  We expect the vast majority of biodiesel used in the U.S. and produced from canola/rapeseed oil will come from U.S. and Canadian crops.  Incidental amounts from crops produced in other nations will not impact our average GHG emissions.  Therefore, EPA proposes to interpret the approved canola pathway as covering canola/rapeseed regardless of country origin.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

      This action is not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of Executive Order 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 any new information collection burden. The corrections, clarifications, and modifications to the final RFS2 regulations contained in this rule are within the scope of the information collection requirements submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the final RFS2 regulations.

      OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart M under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060 -  0637 and 2060-0640. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

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 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 today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

      After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This proposed rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities. The relatively minor corrections and modifications this proposed rule makes to the final RFS2 regulations do not impact small entities.  We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

      This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. We have determined that this action will not result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the above parties and thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.

      This proposed rule 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. It only applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications to the RFS2 regulations.

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 action only applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers and makes relatively minor corrections and modifications to the RFS2 regulations.  Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

      In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials.

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

      This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It applies to gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuel producers, importers, distributors and marketers. This action makes relatively minor corrections and modifications to the RFS regulations, and does not impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Nonetheless, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

      EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5 - 501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

      This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

      This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider 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.

      EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. These amendments would not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the RFS regulations and therefore would not cause emissions increases from these sources.

VII. 	Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

	Statutory authority for the rule finalized today can be found in section 211 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545. Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of today's rule, including the recordkeeping requirements, come from Sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel Fuel, Energy, Forest and Forest Products, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports,  Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: ____________________________

__________________________________
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator


[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63382-63384]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0869, FRL-8721-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Diego
Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD), San Joaquin Valley
Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), and Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern the permitting of air
pollution sources. We are approving local rules under authority of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 23, 2008 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 24, 2008. If
we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0869, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Are the Purposes of the Submitted Rules and Rule
Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendation To Further Improve a Rule
    D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they
were amended by the local air agencies and submitted by the California
Air Resources Board.

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.          Rule title           Adopted or revised     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD.............................           24  Temporary Permit to      03/20/96, Adopted......     10/18/96
                                                    Operate.
SJVAPCD.............................         2050  Cancellation of          12/16/93, Adopted......     05/24/94
                                                    Application.
VCAPCD..............................           11  Definitions for          03/14/06, Revised......     06/16/06
                                                    Regulation II.
VCAPCD..............................           29  Conditions on Permits..  03/14/06, Revised......     06/16/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 14, 1994, the submittal of SJVAPCD Rule 2050 was found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review. On July 21, 2006, the submittals
of VCAPCD Rules 11 and 29 were found to meet the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved versions of VCAPCD Rules 11 and 29 into the SIP on
December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567). There is no version of SJVAPCD Rule
2050 in the SIP.

C. What Are the Purposes of the Submitted Rules and Rule Revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the
environment. Permitting rules were developed as part of the local air
district's programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of new SDCAPCD Rule 24 are as follows:
     The rule establishes the Authority to Construct (ATC) as
the temporary Permit to Operate (PTO) during the interim period after
completion of construction until a new or modified emission unit can be
inspected by the Air Pollution Control Officer and a new PTO be issued.
     The rule establishes an application for change of
ownership or application for ATC and PTO as a temporary PTO during the
interim period until a new or

modified emission unit can be inspected by the APCO and a new ATC be
issued.
    The purposes of new SJVAPCD Rule 2050 are as follows:
     The rule requires that an Authority to Construct (ATC)
expire in two years unless construction is commenced, as defined in 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xvi).
     The rule allows one two-year extension of an ATC in case
all preconstruction permits and approvals have not been obtained, or
there is an economic downturn, or the construction is part of a larger
project on which construction has commenced.
     The rule requires that a Permit to Operate expire in two
years unless it is renewed.
    The purpose of the revision of VCAPCD Rule 11 relative to the SIP
is as follows:
     The rule removes the references to the Community Bank for
the definitions of ``small source'' and ``medium source,'' because the
Community Bank no longer applies to sources with permitted emissions
less than 5 tons per year.
    The purposes of revisions of VCAPCD Rule 29 relative to the SIP are
as follows:
     The rule changes the calculation method for permitted
emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC) for gasoline dispensing
facilities and dry cleaning facilities to include accounting for the
control equipment and the amount of throughput requested by the
permittee in addition to accounting for the number, size, and type of
storage tanks at the source.
     The rule requires that the permittee submit an application
and provide offsets to increase emissions of ROC to equal or more than
5 tons per year. For smaller emissions of ROC, the allowed emissions
shall be changed as part of the annual permit renewal process.
    The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, administrative SIP rules must be enforceable (see
section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). There are no specific reasonably
available control measure/reasonably available control technology
(RACM/RACT) requirements for administrative rules.
    The following guidance and policy documents that we used to define
specific enforceability requirements include the following:
     Review of New Sources and Modifications, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR
part 51, subpart I.
     Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, (August 21, 2001). (The Little Bluebook)

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendation To Further Improve a Rule

    The TSD describes an additional revision to SJVAPCD Rule 2050 that
does not affect EPA's current action but is recommended for the next
time the local agency modifies the rule.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules, because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by November 24, 2008, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on December 23, 2008. This will incorporate
these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 23, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 2, 2008.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(197)(i)(C)(6),
(241)(i)(A)(6), and (345)(i)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (197) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (6) Rule 2050, ``Cancellation of Application,'' adopted on May 21,
1992 and amended on December 16, 1993.
* * * * *
    (241) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (6) Rule 24, ``Temporary Permit to Operate,'' adopted on March 20,
1996.
* * * * *
    (345) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 11, ``Definitions for Regulation II,'' and Rule 29,
``Conditions on Permits,'' adopted on June 13, 1995 and May 23, 1972,
respectively, and revised on March 14, 2006.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-25310 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12277-12278]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4831]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0960; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-09-AD;
Amendment 39-16620; AD 98-09-27R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768, 772,
and 772B Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are rescinding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
the products listed above. The existing AD, AD 98-09-27, resulted from
aircraft certification testing which revealed that stresses on the
thrust reverser hinge were higher than had been anticipated during
engine certification, and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority,
issuing AD 008-03-97. Since we issued AD 98-09-27, we discovered that
its requirements were duplicated in airplane-level AD 2001-09-14,
issued by the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate. We proposed to
rescind the engine-level AD.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On April 23, 1998, the FAA Engine & Propeller Directorate issued
engine AD 98-09-27 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998). On April 30, 2001, the
FAA Transport Airplane Directorate issued airplane AD 2001-09-14 (66 FR
23838, May 10, 2001). Those ADs both require the same initial and
repetitive visual inspections of Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768 and
772 series turbofan engine thrust reverser hinge lugs and attachment
ribs for cracks, and, if necessary, removal from service and
replacement with serviceable parts.
    Since we issued engine AD 98-09-27 and airplane AD 2001-09-14, we
determined that duplicate ADs to address the same unsafe condition were
unnecessary. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend
14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November
15, 2010 (75 FR 69611), and proposed to rescind AD 98-09-27, Amendment
39-10508 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We received no comments on the proposal.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Authority for this Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part
39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by rescinding airworthiness directive
(AD) 98-09-27, Amendment 39-10508 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998):

98-09-27R1 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-16620. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0960; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-09-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective April 11, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD rescinds AD 98-09-27.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768, 772, and
772B turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Airbus A330-341 and A330-342 series airplanes.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 24, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-4831 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16091-16092]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project No. 459-297]

Union Electric Company dba Ameren/UE; Notice of Application for
Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

March 24, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and waters.
    b. Project No: 459-297.
    c. Date Filed: March 18, 2010 .
    d. Applicant: Union Electric Company dba Ameren/UE.
    e. Name of Project: Osage Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed non-project use is located in Linn Creek
Cove, on Lake of the Ozarks, in Camden County, Missouri.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark Jordan, Ameren/UE, P.O. Box 780, MC
CP-850, Jefferson City, MO 65102,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protest:
April 26, 2010.
    Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more
information on how to submit these types of filings, please go to the
Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov.filing-
comments.asp. Please include the project number (P-459-297) on any
comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
authorization to permit Y Investments to construct a 27-slip
residential community dock. The dock would serve a planned residential
community.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7147 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P