[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35939-35940]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0226]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Milford Haven, Hudgins, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, across Milford Haven, mile
0.1, at Hudgins, Virginia. This proposed temporary modification will
allow the drawbridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation
position and is necessary to accommodate bridge maintenance. We invite
your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before July 1, 2022. The Coast Guard anticipates that this proposed
rule will be effective from 2 a.m. on August 19, 2022, through 11 p.m.
on April 15, 2023.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-2026 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Ms. Crystal Tucker, Bridge Administration Branch
Fifth District, Coast Guard telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The Virginian Department of Transportation, who owns and operates
the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, across Milford Haven, mile 0.1, at
Hudgins, Virginia, has requested this modification to allow the
drawbridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position to
facilitate maintenance of the drawbridge.
    The SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, across Milford Haven, mile 0.1,
at Hudgins, Virginia has a vertical clearance of 12 feet above mean
high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance
above mean high water in the open position. The current operating
schedule for the drawbridge is published in 33 CFR 117.5.
    This proposed rule is necessary to facilitate safe and effective
bridge maintenance of the drawbridge, while providing for the
reasonable needs of navigation. Vessels that can safely transit through
the bridge in the closed position with the reduced clearance may do so,
if at least a thirty-minute notice is given, to allow for navigation
safety. The SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge is the only land-based method
for access on and off Gwynn's Island, therefore, placing the bridge in
the open position to perform extensive bridge maintenance would
adversely affect residents on the island.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Under this proposed rule, the drawbridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week from 2 a.m. on August 19, 2022, through 11 p.m. on April 15, 2023.
This proposed rule is necessary to accommodate extensive maintenance on
the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge.
    The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the
bridge in the closed position. Vessels that can safely transit through
the bridge in the closed position with the reduced vertical clearance
may do so, if at least a thirty-minute notice is given, to allow for
navigation safety.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is a result of pre rulemaking
coordination with maritime stakeholders including federal agencies.
This proposed rule effectively balances the competing interests of land
and maritime transportation.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV, A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically
affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rule. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0226 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    To view documents mentioned in this proposed rule as being
available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous
paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online
docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  117.1017T to read as follows:

Sec.  117. 1017T  Milford Haven.

    The draw of the SR223 (Gwynn's Island) Bridge, mile 0.1, in
Hudgins, need not be open for vessels from 2 a.m. on July 19, 2022,
through 11 p.m. on April 15, 2023.

    Dated: June 8, 2022.
S.N. Gilreath,
Rear Admiral U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-12783 Filed 6-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59222-59223]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[AC 187-1J]

Schedule of Charges Outside the United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the
availability of Advisory Circular (AC) 187-1J, which transmits an
updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards
aviation safety inspectors (ASI) outside the United States. The AC has
been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 187, Appendix A.

DATES: This AC is effective on October 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: How to obtain copies: A copy of this publication may be
downloaded from: http://www.faa.gov/search/?q=ac+187-1.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tish Thompkins, Flight Standards
Service, AFS-50, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2015.
John Barbagallo,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24959 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11488-11490]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03714]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0088; FRL-10020-47]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (February 2021)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0088, by using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. 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.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR [part 174 and/or part 180] for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking public comment on the request before responding to the
petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time.
EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this
document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section
408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts
    1. PP 0F8855. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0607). Bayer CropScience, 800 N
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to amend the
tolerance(s) in 40 CFR 180.661(a)(1) for residues of the fungicide
fluopyram (N-[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) in or on Grain, cereal, group 15, except
corn and rice from 4.0 parts per million (ppm) to 0.5 ppm, and Rapeseed
subgroup 20A from 5.0 ppm to 0.3 ppm. High performance liquid
chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/
MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical fluopyram. Contact:
RD.
    2. PP 0F8855. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0607). Bayer CropScience, 800 N
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to amend the
tolerance(s) in 40 CFR 180.661(2) for residues of the fungicide
fluopyram (N-[2-[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) and its metabolite 2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, expressed in parent equivalents in or on
the animal commodities of Cattle, fat from 0.70 ppm to 0.60 ppm,
Cattle, meat from 0.80 ppm to 0.60 ppm, Cattle, meat byproducts from
7.5 ppm to 6.0 ppm, Egg from 0.08 ppm to 0.06 ppm, Goat, fat from 0.70
ppm to 0.60 ppm, Goat, meat from 0.80 ppm to 0.60 ppm, Goat, meat
byproducts from 7.5 ppm to 6.0 ppm, Hog, fat from 0.20 ppm to 0.01 ppm,
Hog, meat from 0.02 ppm to 0.01 ppm, Hog, meat byproducts from 0.20 ppm
to 0.06 ppm, Horse, fat from 0.70 ppm to 0.60 ppm, Horse, meat from
0.80 ppm to 0.60 ppm, Horse, meat byproducts from 7.5 ppm to 6.0 ppm,
Poultry, fat from 0.04 ppm to 0.03 ppm, Poultry, meat from 0.04 ppm to
0.03 ppm, Poultry, meat byproducts from 0.20 ppm to 0.10 ppm, Sheep,
fat from 0.70 ppm to 0.60 ppm, Sheep, meat from 0.80 ppm to 0.60 ppm,
and Sheep, meat byproducts from 7.5 ppm to 6.0 ppm. High performance
liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the chemical fluopyram and
its metabolite 2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide. Contact: RD.

New Tolerances for Non-Inerts
    1. PP 0E8847. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0419). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-
carbonitrile] in or on carrot, roots at 7 parts per million (ppm);
celtuce at 15 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.05 ppm; dragon fruit at
20 ppm; durian at 20 ppm; fennel, florence, fresh leaves and stalk at
15 ppm; jackfruit at 20 ppm; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 15
ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4-16A at 30 ppm; mangosteen at 5 ppm;
persimmon, Japanese at 5 ppm; sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.01 ppm;
tropical and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A at
20 ppm; vegetable, legume, group 6, except bean, dry and bean,
succulent at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B,
except carrot and ginseng at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C, except yam, true, tuber at 6 ppm. Upon approval of
the aforementioned tolerances, it is proposed that 40 CFR 180.516 be
amended to remove established tolerances for the residues of
fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-
carbonitrile] in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Carrots at 7.0
ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05 ppm; dragon fruit at 1.0 ppm; leaf
petioles subgroup 4B at 15 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A at 30 ppm;
longan at 20 ppm; lychee at 20 ppm; melon subgroup 9A at 0.03 ppm;
safflower, seed at 0.01 ppm; Spanish lime at 20 ppm; sunflower, seed at
0.01 ppm; vegetable, legume, group 6 at 0.01 ppm; vegetable, root,
except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.75 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and
corm, subgroup 1C at 6.0 ppm. The analytical method uses Syngenta Crop
Protection Method AG-597B. This method has passed an EPA petition
method validation for several commodities, which is currently the
enforcement method for fludioxonil. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0E8862. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0603). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 500
College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.677 for residues of the
insecticide cyflumetofen, 2-methoxyethyl [alpha]-cyano-[alpha]-[4-(1,1-
dimethylethyl)phenyl]-[beta]-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate
in or on Hop, dried cones at 30 parts per million (ppm). The ``Method
for Determination of Residues of Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and its
Metabolites in Plant Matrices Using LC-MS/MS; BASF Analytical Method
Number: D1003; Dated: September 26, 2011'' and ``Independent Laboratory
Validation of BASF Method D1003 for BAS 9210 I and B-1 in Hops using
LC-MS/MS; Author: Nadzeya Homazava, 13 June 2017.'' BASF Doc ID 2017/
1002961 are used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 0F8853. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0375). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the herbicide,
bicyclopyrone in or on banana at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); broccoli
at 0.01 ppm; garlic, bulb at 0.02 ppm; hops, dried cones at 0.04 ppm;
horseradish at 0.015 ppm; onion, bulb: 0.02 ppm, onion, green at 0.05
ppm; papaya at 0.01 ppm; plantains at 0.01 ppm; strawberry at 0.01 ppm;
sweet potato, roots at 0.02 ppm; timothy, forage at 0.9 ppm; timothy,
hay at 1.5 ppm; and watermelon at 0.01 ppm. The Analytical methods
GRM030.05A, GRM030.05B, GRM030.08A is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical bicyclopyrone. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 0F8855. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0607). Bayer CropScience, 800 N
Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63167 requests to establish a tolerance
in 40 CFR part 180.661 for residues of the fungicide fluopyram (N-[2-
[3-chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]ethyl]-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) in or on coffee at 0.03 parts per million
(ppm). High performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization/
tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is used to measure and evaluate the
chemical fluopyram. Contact: RD
    5. PP 0F8858. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0020). Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the fungicide,
fludioxonil, [4-(2,2-difluoro-1,3-benzodioxol-4-yl)-1H-pyrrole-3-
carbonitrile] in or on tree nut crop group 14-12, except pistachios at
0.2 parts per million (ppm) and almond hulls at 15 ppm. The analytical
method uses Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-597B. This method has
passed an EPA petition method validation for several commodities, which
is currently the enforcement method for fludioxonil. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: February 12, 2021.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2021-03714 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14549-14550]
[DOCID:fr31mr09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13234-001]

City and Borough of Sitka

Notice of Request To Use Alternative Procedures in Preparing a
License Application

March 24, 2009.
    Take notice that the following request to use alternative
procedures to prepare a license application has been filed with the
Commission.
    a. Type of Application: Request to use alternative procedures to
prepare an original license application.
    b. Project No.: 13234-001
    c. Date filed: March 20, 2009
    d. Applicant: City and Borough of Sitka
    e. Name of Project: Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: On the Takatz Lake and Takatz Creek, approximately 20
miles east of the City of Sitka, Alaska, on east side of Baranof
Island. The project would occupy federal lands within the Tongass
National Forest, administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Christopher Brewton, Utility Manager, City
and Borough of Sitka, Electric Department, 105 Jarvis Street, Sitka,
Alaska 98335,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Joseph Adamson, phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for Comments: 30 days from the date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    k. The project would consist of a 200-foot-high primary concrete
arch dam with spillway and parapet wall that would raise the elevation
of the existing lake; 30-foot-high secondary saddle dam; an impoundment
with a 740-acre surface area at a full pool elevation of 1,040 feet
mean sea level, with an active capacity of 82,000 acre-feet; an
approximately 4-mile-long access road; a 2,800-foot-long, 6.5-foot by
7-foot modified unlined horseshoe tunnel fed by an intake into a 72-
inch-diameter 1,000-foot-long steel penstock leading to a powerhouse
containing two Francis-type generating units, having a total installed
capacity of 27,700 kilowatts; an approximately 21-mile-long, 115
kilovolt (kv) or 138 kv transmission line that consists of a
combination of submarine, overhead, and underground segments.
    l. A copy of the request to use alternative procedures is available
for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may 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.
For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    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,
contact FERC Online Support.
    m. The City and Borough of Sitka has demonstrated that it has made
an effort to contact all federal and state resources agencies, non-
governmental organizations (NGO), and others affected by the project.
The City and Borough of Sitka has also demonstrated that a consensus
exists that the use of alternative procedures is appropriate in this
case. The City and Borough of Sitka has submitted a communications
protocol that is supported by the stakeholders.
    The purpose of this notice is to invite any additional comments on
the City and Borough of Sitka's request to use the alternative
procedures, pursuant to section 4.34(i) of the Commission's
regulations. Additional notices seeking comments on the specific
project proposal, interventions and protests, and recommended terms and
conditions will be issued at a later date. The City and Borough of
Sitka will complete and file a preliminary Environmental Assessment, in
lieu of Exhibit E of the license application. This differs from the
traditional process, in which an applicant consults with agencies,
Indian tribes, NGOs, and other parties during preparation of the
license application and before filing the application, but the
Commission staff performs the environmental review after the
application is filed. The alternative procedures are intended to
simplify and expedite the licensing process by combining the pre-filing
consultation and environmental review processes into a single process,
to facilitate greater participation, and to improve communication and
cooperation among the participants.
    The City and Borough of Sitka has met with federal and state
resources agencies regarding the proposed Takatz Lake Hydroelectric
Project. The City and Borough of Sitka intends to file 6-month progress
reports during the alternative procedures process that leads to the
filing of a license application by September 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7079 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register: September 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 58418]
[DOCID:fr24se10-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3315-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Massachusetts; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-3315-EM), dated September 2,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective September 4, 2010.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-24008 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16921-16924]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06881]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0844; FRL-9960-88-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide Limits for Saint
Paul Park Refining Co. LLC Facility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a site-
specific state implementation plan (SIP) revision in Washington County,
Minnesota, for Saint Paul Park Refining Co. LLC (Saint Paul Park). This
revision includes changes to the ownership and facility name, removal
of the ability to burn refinery oil, addition of a new unit, and
updates to the modeling parameters for the facility. EPA is approving
the SIP revision because it meets Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(l)
requirements.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 6, 2017, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 8, 2017. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0844 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the

official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we'',
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this revision?
II. How is the SIP being revised?
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this revision?

    Saint Paul Park operates a petroleum refinery in Washington County,
Minnesota. The refinery processes crude oil into various products such
as gasoline, diesel fuel, distillate oils, asphalt, and sulfur. Saint
Paul Park is in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota sulfur dioxide
(SO2) maintenance area. This area was designated as
nonattainment for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) on March 3,1978 (43 FR 8962). EPA redesignated the
area in 1997 to attainment of the SO2 NAAQS, making it a
maintenance area (May 13, 1997, 62 FR 26230).
    EPA previously approved the joint Title I/Title V document (permit
number 16300003-016) as a SIP revision on December 28, 2010 (75 FR
81471)
    On December 17, 2015, Minnesota submitted to EPA the joint Title I/
Title V document (permit number 16300003-021), effective on November
25, 2015, as a revision to its SIP.
    On January 13, 2017, Minnesota submitted a revised air dispersion
modeling analysis for Saint Paul Park. The modeling analysis provides
insight into the expected air quality impacts that result from the
revisions at this facility.

II. How is the SIP being revised?

    The SIP modifications for Saint Paul Park consist of: (1) An update
to the facility ownership and name, (2) restricting five combustion
units to burning only natural gas or refinery gas by removing their
ability to burn refinery oil, (3) an update of the modeling parameters
for the facility, and (4) the addition of a new unit, the solvent
deasphalting unit (EQUI 323).
    First, the facility was previously listed in the Minnesota SIP as
Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC, and has since changed its name to
Saint Paul Park Refining Co. LLC. The facility is an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Northern Tier Energy, LP.
    Second, EPA is approving the removal of Saint Paul Park's ability
to combust refinery oil. The five units that previously could use
refinery oil are now restricted to using refinery gas or natural gas.
Specifically, this applies to the numbered equipment (EQUI) 1, EQUI 3,
EQUI 6, EQUI 13, and EQUI 15 units. The SO2 emission limits
in the SIP for the five units were reduced to reflect the potential to
emit when using refinery gas. The revised SO2 limits in
pounds per hour (lb/hr), as a 3-hour rolling average, are as follows:

     Alkylation Isostripper Reboiler (EQUI 1) reduced from
64.08 lb/hr to 1.44 lb/hr.
     No. 2 Crude Vacuum Heater (EQUI 3) from 48.60 lb/hr to
2.62 lb/hr.
     No. 1 Crude Charge Heater (EQUI 6) from 52.20 lb/hr to
2.83 lb/hr.
     Hot Oil Heater (EQUI 13) from 76.50 lb/hr to 2.62 lb/hr.
     SGP Dehexanizer Reboiler (EQUI 15) from 36.0 lb/hr to 1.60
lb/hr.

    Revisions to the SO2 limits also removed the pounds
SO2 per million British thermal units (lbs-SO2/
MMBTU) limitations for all applicable Saint Paul Park units because
they were redundant. The lbs-SO2/MMBTU emission limits came
from its potential to emit SO2 from the hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) in the fuel. Thus, the existing H2S
concentration limit caps emissions making a revised lbs-SO2/
MMBTU limit unnecessary.
    Third, EPA is approving updated modeling parameters for Saint Paul
Park because removing the ability to burn refinery oil changes plume
dispersion characteristics. Also, Boilers 7 and 8 (EQUI 42 and EQUI 43)
are more efficient than presumed in the modeled design, meaning there
is less waste heat resulting in lower stack gas temperatures than
expected. Thus, the modeling parameters for Saint Paul Park have been
revised.
    Finally, the SIP request for permit number 16300003-021 allows for
the installation of a solvent deasphalting unit, which includes a
heater (EQUI 323) fired by refinery gas or natural gas. This unit is
the only new SO2 source, which has a potential to emit of
0.80 lb SO2/hr.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    The SO2 emission limitations being approved result in a
decrease of 1699.59 tons per year, which includes the installation of a
solvent deasphalting unit. That is a more than 25 percent reduction in
SO2 emission limitations from 5697.59 to 3998.00 tons per
year (permit number 16300003-016 to 16300003-021).
    The modeling analysis Minnesota provided shows the area expects to
continue to meet the SO2 NAAQS with the revisions being
approved. The modeling analysis shows the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
maintenance area expects to continue to meet the SO2 NAAQS.
That result is logical, given the net emissions reduction of the
revisions being approved at Saint Paul Park.
    The updated modeling parameters in the permit were also revised to
better reflect the current operating conditions at Saint Paul Park.
Minnesota will use the updated modeling parameters to improve the
accuracy of future modeling.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the SO2 limitations at
Saint Paul Park in Washington County, Minnesota, because they meet CAA
section 110(l) requirements. EPA is approving into the Minnesota SIP
the portions of the joint Title I/Title V document (permit number
16300003-021), cited as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2
SIP), Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y.'' This approval
replaces the conditions of Permit Number 16300003-016 as approved on
December 28, 2010 into the Minnesota SIP. 75 FR 81471.
    The revisions include changes to the ownership and facility name,
removal of the ability to burn refinery oil, addition of a new unit,
and updates to the modeling parameters for the facility. These
revisions are expected to reduce potential SO2 emissions
from Saint Paul Park by more than 25 percent.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 6, 2017
without further

notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by May 8,
2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. 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. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective June 6, 2017.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Minnesota
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 CAA 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 June 6, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 22, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entry for ``Marathon Petroleum, LLC'' and adding in alphabetical
order an entry for ``Saint Paul Park Refining Co., LLC''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
          Name of source             Permit No.    effective date   EPA approval date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Saint Paul Park Refining Co., LLC    16300003-021      11/25/2015  4/7/2017, [Insert    Only conditions cited as
                                                                    Federal Register     ``Title I Condition: 40
                                                                    citation].           CFR 50.4 (SO2 SIP),
                                                                                Title I Condition: 40
                                                                                CFR pt. 52, subp. Y''

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-06881 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44481-44485]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18393]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0080; FRL-9704-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve changes to the Tennessee
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) through the Division of Air
Pollution Control to EPA on July 29, 2011. The July 29, 2011, SIP
revision modifies Tennessee's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) programs. Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision proposes to
incorporate, into the Tennessee SIP, NSR provisions for
PM2.5 as amended in EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5
Implementation Rule. Also, Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision
makes a corrective and clarifying administrative change to rule 1200-
03-09-.01. EPA is approving Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision
because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA
regulations regarding NSR permitting.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0080. All documents in the docket
are listed on the 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 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 to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Tennessee 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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information regarding NSR, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits
Section, at the same address above. Ms. Adams' telephone number is
(404) 562-9214; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the PM2.5 NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. Mr. Huey's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA is taking final action on Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP
revision to adopt rules equivalent to federal requirements for NSR
permitting.\1\ Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision includes changes
to Tennessee's Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 1200-03-09--
Construction and Operating Permits, Rule Number .01--Construction
Permits, to adopt federal PSD and NNSR promulgated in the rule entitled
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5), '' Final Rule, 73
FR

28321 (May 16, 2008), hereafter referred to as the ``NSR
PM2.5 Rule.'' Also, Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision
includes clarifying changes to rule 1200-03-09-.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision also contains
changes to Tennessee Chapter 1200-03-26--Administrative Fees
Schedule provisions. EPA is not proposing action on this part of the
submittal as these provisions are not part of the federally-approved
Tennessee SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 2012, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve
the aforementioned changes to Tennessee's NSR PSD program. See 77 FR
34302. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July
11, 2012. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received on EPA's
June 11, 2012 proposed rulemaking. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
EPA is now taking final action to approve the changes to Tennessee's
NSR PSD program as provided in EPA's June 11, 2012, proposed
rulemaking. A summary of the background for today's final action is
provided below. For more detail, please refer to EPA's proposed
rulemaking at 77 FR 34302.

A. NSR PM2.5 Rule

    EPA finalized a rule on May 16, 2008, that revised the NSR program
requirements to establish the framework for implementing
preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both
attainment and nonattainment areas. Specifically, the NSR
PM2.5 Rule established the following NSR requirements to
implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) Require NSR permits to
address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2)
establish significant emission rates for direct PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX)); (3) establish PM2.5
emission offsets; (4) provide exceptions to inhalable particles smaller
than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) (PM10)
grandfather policy; and (5) require states to account for gases that
condense to form particles (condensables) in PM2.5 and
PM10 emission limits in PSD or nonattainment NSR permits.
Additionally, the NSR PM2.5 Rule authorized states to adopt
provisions in their nonattainment NSR rules that would allow
interpollutant offset trading. See 73 FR 28321. States were required to
provide SIP submissions to address the requirements for the NSR
PM2.5 Rule by May 16, 2011. Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP
revision addresses the PSD and NNSR requirements related to EPA's May
16, 2008, NSR PM2.5 Rule.
1. PM10 Surrogate and Grandfathering Policy
    In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA required that major
stationary sources seeking permits must begin directly satisfying the
PM2.5 requirements, as of the effective date of the rule,
rather than relying on PM10 as a surrogate, with two
exceptions.\2\ The first exception is a ``grandfathering'' provision in
the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering
provision applied to sources that had applied for, but had not yet
received, a final and effective PSD permit before the July 15, 2008,
effective date of the May 2008 final rule. The second exception was
that states with SIP-approved PSD programs could continue to implement
the Seitz Memo's PM10 Surrogate Policy for up to three years
(until May 2011) or until the individual revised state PSD programs for
PM2.5 are approved by EPA, whichever comes first. On May 18,
2011 (76 FR 28646), EPA took final action to repeal the
PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi).
This final action ended the use of the 1997 PM10 Surrogate
Policy for PSD permits under the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21.
In effect, any PSD permit applicant previously covered by the
grandfathering provision (for sources that completed and submitted a
permit application before July 15, 2008) \3\ that did not have a final
and effective PSD permit before the effective date of the repeal will
not be able to rely on the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy to
satisfy the PSD requirements for PM2.5 unless the
application includes a valid surrogacy demonstration. See 76 FR 28646.
In its July 29, 2011, SIP revision, Tennessee elected not to adopt the
grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi), into its PSD
regulations. Therefore, Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision is
consistent with federal regulations since it does not contain the
repealed grandfathering provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ After EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 in
1997, the Agency issued guidance documents related to using
PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 entitled
``Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for
PM2.5.'' John S. Seitz, EPA, October 23, 1997 (the
``Seitz memo'') and ``Implementation of New Source Review
Requirements in PM-2.5 Nonattainment Areas'' (the ``2005
PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Guidance'').
    \3\ Sources that applied for a PSD permit under the federal PSD
program on or after July 15, 2008, are already excluded from using
the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy as a means of satisfying
the PSD requirements for PM2.5. See 76 FR 28321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``Condensable'' Provision
    In the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA revised the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' for PSD to add a paragraph providing that
``particulate matter (PM) emissions, PM2.5 emissions and
PM10 emissions'' shall include gaseous emissions from a
source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient
temperatures and that on or after January 1, 2011, such condensable
particulate matter shall be accounted for in applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM,
PM2.5 and PM10 in permits issued. See 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(vi) and ``Emissions Offset
Interpretative Ruling'' (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S). On March 16,
2012,\4\ EPA proposed a rulemaking to amend the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' promulgated in the NSR PM2.5
Rule regarding the PM condensable provision at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi), 52.21(b)(50)(i) and EPA's Emissions Offset
Interpretative Ruling. See 77 FR 15656. The rulemaking proposes to
remove the inadvertent requirement in the NSR PM2.5 Rule
that the measurement of condensable ``particulate matter emissions'' be
included as part of the measurement and regulation of ``particulate
matter emissions.'' \5\ Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision adopts
EPA's definition for regulated NSR pollutant for condensables (at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi)), including the term ``particulate matter
emissions,'' as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In EPA's June 11, 2012, proposed rulemaking, EPA cited March
12, 2012, as the publication date for the particulate matter
emissions correction notice. The correct publication date is March
16, 2012.
    \5\ The term ``particulate matter emissions'' includes particles
that are larger than PM2.5 and PM10 and is an
indicator measured under various New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) (40 CFR part 60). In addition to the NSPS for PM, it is noted
that states have regulated ``particulate matter emissions'' for many
years in their SIPs for PM, and the same indicator has been used as
a surrogate for determining compliance with certain standards
contained in 40 CFR part 63, regarding National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 1, 2012, the State of Tennessee provided a letter to EPA
with clarification of the State's intent in light of EPA's March 12,
2012, proposed rulemaking. Specifically, in that letter, the State of
Tennessee requested that EPA not approve the term ``particulate matter
emissions'' (at rule 1200-03-09-.01(4)(b)47(vi)) as part of the
definition for ``regulated NSR pollutant'' regarding the inclusion of
condensable emissions in applicability determinations and in
establishing emissions limitations for PM.
3. Interpollutant Trading
    The NSR PM2.5 final Rule authorized states to adopt
provisions in their NNSR rules that would allow major stationary
sources and major modifications located in areas designated
nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset emissions increases of
direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors with
reductions of either direct PM2.5 emissions or
PM2.5 precursors in accordance with offset

ratios contained in the approved SIP for the applicable nonattainment
area. The inclusion, in whole or in part, of the interpollutant trading
offset provisions for PM2.5 is discretionary on the part of
the states. In the preamble to the NSR PM2.5 Rule, EPA
included preferred or presumptive offset ratios, applicable to specific
PM2.5 precursors, that states may adopt in conjunction with
the new interpollutant trading offset provisions for PM2.5,
and for which the state could rely on the EPA's technical work to
demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios for use in any PM2.5
nonattainment area.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Alternatively, the preamble indicated that states may adopt
their own ratios, subject to EPA's approval, that would have to be
substantiated by modeling or other technical demonstrations of the
net air quality benefit for ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preferred ratios were subsequently the subject of a petition
for reconsideration which the EPA Administrator granted in 2009. As a
result of the reconsideration, on July 21, 2011, EPA issued a
memorandum entitled ``Revised Policy to Address Reconsideration of
Interpollutant Trading Provisions for Fine Particles
(PM2.5)'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Interpollutant
Trading Memorandum''). The Interpollutant Trading Memorandum indicated
that the existing preferred offset ratios are no longer considered
presumptively approvable and that any precursor offset ratio submitted
as part of the NSR SIP for a PM2.5 nonattainment area must
be accompanied by a technical demonstration showing the net air quality
benefits of such ratio for the PM2.5 nonattainment area in
which it will be applied. Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision
adopts the interpollutant policy but not the preferred trading ratios
established in the NSR PM2.5 Rule.

II. This Action

    Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision adopts NSR PM2.5
Rule provisions into the Tennessee SIP at Chapter 12000-03-09
including: (1) Requirement for NSR permits to address directly emitted
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) significant emission
rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(SO2 and NOX); (3) PSD and NNSR requirements of
states to address condensable PM in establishing enforceable emission
limits for PM10 or PM2.5; (4) PM2.5
emission offsets; and (5) optional interpollutant trading provision set
forth at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(11). These amendments to the Tennessee rules
became state-effective June 27, 2011. Specifically, the SIP revision
establishes that the State's existing NSR permitting program
requirements for PSD and NNSR apply to the PM2.5 NAAQS and
its precursors; revise the definitions of ``significant'' at 1200-03-
09-.01(4)(b)24(i) and (5)(b)1(x)(I) to establish significant emission
rates for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for
major modifications at existing sources (as amended at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) and 51.166(b)(23)(i)); revise the term ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' at 1200-03-09-.01(4)(b)47 and (5)(b)1(xlix) to include
PM2.5, recognize PM2.5 precursors and include the
requirement that condensable emissions be accounted for in
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations
for PM (as amended at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C) and
51.166(b)(49)); and adopt NNSR emission offsets (a ratio of 1:1) for
direct PM2.5 at 1200-03-09-.01(5)2(v) (as amended at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(9)).
    Additionally, Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision does not
include the grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(ix)
promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule. Therefore, Tennessee's
July 29, 2011, SIP revision is consistent with federal regulations. The
July 29, 2011, SIP revision adopts the elective interpollutant trading
provision policy at 1200-03-09(5)(b)2.(v)(XV) set forth at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(11) for the purpose of offsets under the PM2.5
NNSR program. Pursuant to EPA's July 21, 2011, Interpollutant Trading
Memorandum, the preferred precursor offset ratios included in the
preamble to the NSR PM2.5 Rule are no longer considered
presumptively approvable. Therefore, any precursor offset ratio
submitted to EPA for approval as part of the NSR SIP for a
PM2.5 nonattainment area must be accompanied by a technical
demonstration showing the suitability of the ratios for that particular
nonattainment area. Tennessee's adoption of the interpollutant trading
policy and not the trading ratios does not in any way allow a major
stationary source or major modification in the State to obtain offsets
through interpollutant trading, nor does it affect the approvability of
Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revision.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If a major stationary source or source with a major
modification in Tennessee requests to obtain offsets through
interpollutant trading, the State of Tennessee would first be
required, consistent with the requirements of section 51.165(a)(11),
to revise its SIP to adopt appropriate trading ratios. Tennessee
would need to submit to EPA a technical demonstration showing how
either the preferred ratios established in the NSR PM2.5
Rule or the State's own ratios are appropriate for the State's
particular PM2.5 nonattainment as well as a revision to
the NSR program adopting the ratios into the SIP. EPA would then
have to approve the demonstration and ratios into the Tennessee SIP
prior to any major stationary source or major modification obtaining
offsets through the interpollutant trading policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the condensable provision, in light of Tennessee request
in its May 1, 2012, letter and EPA's intention to amend the definition
of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' as discussed in the correction
rulemaking,\8\ EPA is not taking action to approve the terminology
``particulate matter emissions'' into the Tennessee SIP (at 1200-03-
09-.01(4)(b)47(vi)) for the condensable provision in the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant.'' EPA is, however, taking final action to
approve into the Tennessee SIP at 1200-03-09-.01(4)(b)47(vi) the
remaining condensable requirement at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi), which
requires that condensable emissions be accounted for in applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 16, 2012, EPA proposed to correct the inadvertent
inclusion of ``particulate matter emissions'' in the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' as an indicator for which condensable
emissions must be addressed. See 77 FR 75656. The comment period for
this proposed rulemaking ended May 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TDEC's July 29, 2011, SIP revision also makes an administrative
change to Chapter 1200-03-09 for PSD and NNSR including removing the
sentence ``For example, if a project involves both an existing
emissions unit and a Clean Unit, the projected increase is determined
by summing the values determined using the method specified in
paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(c) of this section for the existing unit and
determined using the method specified in paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(e) of
this section for the Clean Unit.'' from the State's hybrid test
applicability provision at 1200-03-09-.01(4)(c)4(vi) and 1200-03-
09-.01(5)(b)2(xvii). Tennessee proposed this change to be consistent
with federal language amended in the June 13, 2007, final rulemaking
regarding the vacated portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule.\9\See 72 FR
32526. This final action approves the aforementioned SIP amendments
into Tennessee's SIP to provide for the implementation of
PM2.5 NAAQS in the State's NSR permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On June 13, 2007, EPA took final action to revise the 2002
NSR Reform Rules to remove from federal law all provisions
pertaining to clean units and the pollution control projects
exemption that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Rule. New York v. United States, 413
F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). See 72 FR 32526. EPA's efforts to remove
the vacated provisions included removing the language from the
hybrid test applicability provision at 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f),
51.165(f)(6) and 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f).

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

III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is taking final action to
approve Tennessee's July 29, 2011, SIP revisions adopting federal
regulations amended in the NSR PM2.5 Rule to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS for the NSR program. EPA is also taking final
action to approve corrective and clarifying administrative changes to
Tennessee's regulations because they are consistent with section 110 of
the CAA and its implementing regulations.

IV. 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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 September 28, 2012. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    Therefore, 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.

0
2. Section 52.2220(c) is amended under Chapter 1200-3-9 by revising the
entry for ``Section 1200-3-9-.01'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      State
            State citation                   Title/subject       effective date              EPA approval date                       Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1200-3-9-.01.................  Construction Permits....         6/27/11  7/30/12 [Insert citation of publication].  EPA is approving Tennessee's
                                                                                July 29, 2011, SIP
                                                                                revisions to Chapter 1200-3-
                                                                                9-.01 with the exception of
                                                                                the term ``particulate
                                                                                matter emissions'' at 1200-
                                                                                03-09-.01(4)(b)47(vi) as
                                                                                part of the definition for
                                                                                ``regulated NSR pollutant''
                                                                                regarding the inclusion of
                                                                                condensable emissions in
                                                                                applicability
                                                                                determinations and in
                                                                                establishing emissions
                                                                                limitations.
                                                                                EPA is approving Tennessee's
                                                                                May 28, 2009, SIP revisions
                                                                                to Chapter 1200-3-9-.01
                                                                                with the exception of the
                                                                                ``baseline actual
                                                                                emissions'' calculation
                                                                                revision found at 1200-3-9-
                                                                                .01(4)(b)45(i)(III),
                                                                                (4)(b)45(ii)(IV),
                                                                                (5)(b)1(xlvii)(I)(III) and
                                                                                (5)(b)1(xlvii)(II)(IV) of
                                                                                the submittal.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-18393 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                    EPA and First Choice Compliance Meeting
                                 June 6, 2013

Attendees
EPA  -  Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Cho Yi Kwan, Erin Knighton, Ryan Haerer
First Choice Compliance  -  Gregg Fahrenbruch, Chris Payne

EPA and First Choice Compliance met to discuss a number of issues from the proposed revisions to the UST regulations.  The discussion included discussion of proposed monthly walkthrough inspections.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60428-60430]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21561]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95945; File No. SR-NYSEAMER-2022-44]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Permit
the Exchange To Declare a Regulatory Halt

September 29, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 23, 2022, NYSE American LLC (``NYSE American''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to permit the Exchange to declare a
regulatory halt in a security that has not been listed on a national
securities exchange immediately prior to the initial pricing based on
the rules of its affiliate New York Stock Exchange LLC. The proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to permit the Exchange to declare a
regulatory halt in a security that has not been listed on a national
securities exchange immediately prior to the initial pricing based on
the rules of its affiliate New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''). More
specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a new subsection (e) to Rule
7.18E (Halts) that would, except for a non-substantive conforming
change, be identical to subsection (d) of NYSE Rule 123D (Halts in
Trading).
Overview
    Rule 7.18E governs halts in trading on the Pillar trading platform,
and how orders are processed during halts, suspensions, or pauses. Rule
7.18E was adopted in connection with the Exchange's transition from a
floor-based market to a fully automated market on the Pillar trading
platform. At the time, halts were governed by Rule 123D--Equities
(Openings and Halts in Trading), which was in turn based on NYSE Rule
123D.\4\ In 2017, Rule 123D--Equities was designated as inapplicable to
trading on Pillar and deleted in its entirety.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80590 (May 4,
2017), 82 FR 21843 (May 10, 2017) and 79993 (February 9, 2017), 82
FR 10814 (February 15, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-01).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82212 (December 4,
2017), 82 FR 58036 (December 8, 2017) (SR-NYSEAmer-2017-34).

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

    The NYSE adopted its version of Rule 7.18 governing halts on the
Pillar trading platform in 2015. In 2017, NYSE Rule 123D was designated
as inapplicable to trading in Pillar. Following completion of the
transition to Pillar in August 2019, the NYSE deleted NYSE Rule 123D as
obsolete, but retained subsection (d), among others, governing initial
listing regulatory halts.\6\ As described below, the Exchange now
proposes to adopt subsection (d) of NYSE Rule 123D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85962 (May 29,
2019), 84 FR 26188 (June 5, 2019) and 81225 (July 27, 2017), 82 FR
36033 (August 2, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2017-35); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 90750 (December 21, 2020), 85 FR 85769 (December 29,
2020) (SR-NYSE-2020-101). Rule 123D was also renamed ``Halts in
Trading'' in 2020. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18E to adopt a regulatory
halt condition for initial Exchange listings based on NYSE Rule
123D(d).
    As proposed, new Rule 7.18E(d) would be titled ``Initial Listing
Regulatory Halt.'' The proposed rule would provide that Exchange may
declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an
initial pricing on the Exchange of a security that has not been listed
on a national securities exchange immediately prior to the initial
pricing, and that the regulatory halt will be terminated when the
security opens. The rule is identical to NYSE Rule 123D(d) except for
the removal of the reference to the Designated Market Maker (``DMM'')
opening the security since NYSE American DMMs are not responsible for
opening or closing individual securities on the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that it would be consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest for the Exchange, as a primary listing
exchange, to have to the limited authority to declare a regulatory halt
for security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange
of a security that has not been listed on a national securities
exchange immediately prior to the initial pricing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\8\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that proposed
Rule 7.18E(e) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of
a free and open market and a national market system because it would
provide the Exchange with the authority to declare a regulatory halt in
a security that the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange of a
security that has not previously been listed on a national securities
exchange immediately prior to the initial pricing. The Exchange
believes that permitting the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt in
such securities before trading on the Exchange begins would promote
fair and orderly markets and, in the case of securities where the
initial listing is not a transfer from another national securities
exchange, avoid potential price disparities or anomalies that may occur
during any trading before the first transaction on the primary listing
exchange. The Exchange therefore believes that having the proposed
authority to declare a regulatory halt is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest and would promote fair
and orderly markets by helping to protect against volatility in pricing
before the initial transaction on the primary listing exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the benefit to investors to halt trading in a security before the
initial listing on the primary listing exchange outweighs any burden on
competition that may result from a regulatory halt in such security.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will, without delay, permit the Exchange to initiate a
regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing
on the exchange in order to promote fair and orderly markets and avoid
potential price disparities or anomalies. Accordingly, the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings

under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \16\ of the Act to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-44 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-44. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMER-2022-44, and should be
submitted on or before October 26, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-21561 Filed 10-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P