[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23464-23466]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10723]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0821]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed
Modified Risk Claims

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on the investigation of consumer perceptions of
expressed modified risk claims.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before July 20, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 20, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-N-0821 for ``Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of
Expressed Modified Risk Claims.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked

as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21
CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information
about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469,
September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Investigation of Consumer Perceptions of Expressed Modified Risk Claims

OMB Control Number 0910--NEW

    FDA's Center for Tobacco Products proposes to conduct a study to
develop generalizable scientific knowledge to help inform its
implementation of section 911 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387k), wherein FDA will be evaluating
information submitted to the Agency about how consumers understand and
perceive modified risk tobacco products (MRTPs). Section 911 of the
FD&C Act authorizes FDA to grant orders to persons to allow the
marketing of MRTPs. The term ``modified risk tobacco product'' means
any tobacco product that is sold or distributed for use to reduce harm
or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially
marketed tobacco products. FDA can issue a risk modification order
under section 911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of a
MRTP only if the Agency determines that the product, as it is used by
consumers, will significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-
related disease to individual tobacco users and benefit the health of
the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco
products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products (section
911(g)(1) of the FD&C Act). Alternatively, with respect to tobacco
products that may not be commercially marketed under section 911(g)(1)
of the FD&C Act, FDA may issue an exposure modification order under
section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act authorizing the marketing of a MRTP
if, the Agency determines that the standard in section 911(g)(2) of the
FD&C Act is met, including, among other requirements, that: Any aspect
of the label, labeling, or advertising that would cause the product to
be an MRTP is limited to an explicit or implicit representation that
the tobacco product or its smoke does not contain or is free of a
substance or contains a reduced level of a substance, or presents a
reduced exposure to a substance in tobacco smoke; the order would be
appropriate to promote the public health; the issuance of the order is
expected to benefit the population as a whole taking into account both
users and nonusers of tobacco products; and the existing evidence
demonstrates that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity
and mortality among individual tobacco users is reasonably likely to be
shown in subsequent studies (section 911(g)(2) of the FD&C Act). In
addition, section 911 of the FD&C Act requires that any advertising or
labeling concerning modified risk products enable the public to
comprehend the information concerning modified risk and to understand
the relative significance of such information in the context of total
health and in relation to all the diseases and health-related
conditions associated with the use of tobacco products (section
911(h)(1) of the FD&C Act). The proposed research will inform the
Agency's efforts to implement the provisions of the FD&C Act related to
MRTPs.
    FDA proposes conducting a study to assist in determining
appropriate methods for gathering information about how consumers
perceive and understand modified risk information. The study would
develop and validate measures of consumer perceptions of health risk
from using tobacco products. Moreover, the study would test how
participants' responses on these measures are affected by viewing
modified risk labeling or advertising, participants' characteristics
such as prior beliefs about the harmfulness of tobacco products,
current use of tobacco products, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Finally, the study would examine factors that may influence the
effectiveness of debriefing at the end of a consumer perception study
to ensure that people read and recall key information about the study.
This research is significant because it will validate methods that can
be used in studies of the impact of labels, labeling, and advertising
on consumer perceptions and understanding of the risks of product use.
    Measures of consumer health risk perception will be developed and
validated by conducting a study on two product types: Moist snuff
smokeless tobacco products and electronic cigarette (e-cigarette)
products. For each product type, we will assess individual-level
factors that may moderate the impact of modified risk information on
consumer responses. Potential moderating factors under study include:
Beliefs (prior to viewing the modified risk information) about the
harmfulness of tobacco products, and the strength with which those
beliefs are held; current tobacco use behaviors; and sociodemographic
characteristics including age and educational attainment. For each
product type, participants will be randomized to view one of two
conditions: Tobacco product labeling and advertising that either does
or does not contain modified risk claims about a product. The labeling
will consist of a product package. The

advertising will consist of a print advertisement. The study will
assess participants' perceptions of various health risks from using the
product, as well as their perceptions of health risk from using the
product compared to smoking cigarettes, using nicotine replacement
therapies, and quitting all tobacco and nicotine products. The study
will also assess participants' intentions to use the product and their
level of doubt about whether tobacco products are harmful to users'
health. Measures of intentions and doubt will be used to help assess
the validity of the measures of health risk perception.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invitation: Young Adults (Ages            29,000               1          29,000            0.02             580
 18-25).........................
Invitation: Adults (Ages 26+)...          29,000               1          29,000            0.02             580
Consent and Screener: Young               11,000               1          11,000            0.10           1,100
 Adults (Ages 18-25)............
Consent and Screener: Adults              16,500               1          16,500            0.10           1,650
 (Ages 26+).....................
Study: Young Adults (Ages 18-25)           3,300               1           3,300            0.33           1,089
Study: Adults (Ages 26+)........           3,300               1           3,300            0.33           1,089
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           6,088
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with research
that is similar to this proposed study. Approximately 58,000 people
will receive a study invitation, estimated to take 1 minute to read
(approximately 0.02 hours), for a total of 1,160 hours for invitations.
Approximately 27,500 people will complete the informed consent and
screener to determine eligibility for participation in the study,
estimated to take 6 minutes (0.10 hours), for a total of 2,750 hours
for informed consent and screening activities. Approximately 6,600
people will complete the full study, estimated to take 20 minutes
(approximately 0.33 hours), for a total of 2,178 hours for study
completion activities. The estimated total hour burden of the
collection of information is 6,088 hours.

    Dated: May 15, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-10723 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN CONSULTATION MEETING

November 3 - 6, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of Hazard and Exposure Associated with Nanosilver and Other
Nanometal Pesticide Products

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

1:30   P.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

1:35   P.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Carey
Pope, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

1:40   P.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Steven Bradbury, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

1:45   P.M.		Evaluation of Hazard and Exposure Associated with
Nanosilver and Other Nanometals –  Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

Introduction - William Jordan, Senior Advisor to the Office Director,
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

Regulatory Framework – Mr. Dennis Edwards, Chief, Regulatory

			Branch I, Antimicrobials Division

Product Chemistry – Najm Shamim, Ph.D., Antimicrobials Divison

Human Toxicity from Silver and Nanosilver –

		Melba S. Morrow, D.V.M., Antimicrobials Division;

		Jenny Tao, M.D., Antimicrobials Division;

		Jessica P. Ryman-Rasmussen, Ph.D., Health Effects Division

Nanosilver Exposure Pathways – Tim Dole, C.I.H., Antimicrobials
Division

Environmental Fate and Transport– Najm Shamim, Ph.D., Antimicrobials
Division

Ecotoxicity of Nanosilver – Ed Odenkirchen, Ph.D., Ecological Fate and
Effects Division

Summary – William Jordan, Senior Advisor to the Office Director,
Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

3:30 P.M.	Break

3:45 P.M.	EPA presentation (continued)

5:30 P.M.	Adjourn

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN CONSULTATION MEETING

November 3 - 6, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of Hazard and Exposure Associated with Nanosilver and Other
Nanometal Pesticide Products

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:35 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Carey
Pope, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:45 A.M.	Public Comment

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Public Comment (continued)

11:00 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge

Charge Question 1.  Potential Risks from Nanosilver Materials Issue:
Whether pesticide products containing nanosilver as the active
ingredient pose potential hazards and exposures to humans and the
environment that are different from those associated with products
containing conventional silver.

A.  Available scientific literature indicates that nanosilver products
may exert an antimicrobial effect by releasing silver ions, and that
these ions may pose potential hazards to humans and the environment.
The Agency is unaware on any information that would suggest exposures to
silver ions released from nanosilver products differ from the hazards of
silver ions released by non-nanosilver (hereafter referred to as silver)
based products and, therefore, might present a different hazard profile.
 Is the Panel aware of any information inconsistent with this
determination?

B.  Available scientific literature also indicates that, in addition to
any hazards resulting from the release of silver ions, nanosilver
particles themselves may present hazards that differ from those of
silver particles. What, if anything, does the existing scientific
literature indicate about the potential for nanosilver materials with
specific particle sizes in the range of 1 to 20 nm, 21 to 50 nm, and 51
to 100 nm to pose different hazards than those of larger-sized particles
of the same material, particularly nanosilver vs. silver?  What does the
existing scientific literature indicate about the potential for
particular physicochemical properties of nanosilver materials (e.g.,
shape, surface characteristics, composition, etc.) to pose hazards that
are different from larger-sized particles of the same material?  Does
existing literature support “bridging” data?  In other words, can
hazard or exposure data developed on 1 to 20 nm silver particles or
silver composites be used to assess the risks for 51 to 100 nm silver
particles or silver composites?

C.  What, if anything, does the existing scientific literature indicate
about the potential for nanosilver particles in the range of 100 nm –
1000 nm (or “agglomerated” nanosilver or nanometals/nanometal
oxides) to pose hazards that are different from larger-sized particles
of the same material?

D.  If nanosilver particles present different hazards than either silver
or agglomerated nanosilver, the potential risks to human health and the
environment will depend on the extent of exposure.  Several types of
nanosilver pesticide products are described in the attached Background
Paper, and other types seem possible in the near future (e.g.,
sanitizers and disinfectants; and chemicals used in or on industrial,
commercial or residential systems, such as slimicides, preservatives,
antifoulants, metal working fluids, etc.).  What do available data on
the release, fate, transport and transformation of nanosilver particles
suggest regarding potential human or ecological systems exposure to
nanosilver particles (individual or agglomerated) under realistic use
scenarios?

E.  The Agency would like the Panel’s advice as to whether the models
currently used by the Agency would be appropriate to predict potential
environmental exposures to nanosilver and if not, what, if any,
modifications would be necessary.

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge Question 1 (continued)

2:00 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge

Charge Question 2.   Data Requirements Issue:  If the panel believes
that nanosilver is different in terms of hazard/exposure what type of
data (studies) would EPA need to adequately assess the potential risks
associated with the use of an antimicrobial pesticide containing
nanosilver particles, when the product is intended for use as an
additive to various substrates (e.g., textiles, plastics, ceramics) to
impart antimicrobial properties to the treated substrate?  In liquid,
spray form?

A.  What types of data on the nanoscale material would be sufficient to
adequately evaluate whether the hazard and exposure properties of the
nanoscale material were comparable to that of a macroscale/bulk form of
the same material?  Could EPA rely on toxicity data for the bulk
material to assess the risk of the nanoscale material?

B.  What types of data would be sufficient to:

1)  Evaluate whether the nanoscale material, once it has been applied to
or incorporated within a substrate, remains associated with the
substrate through the whole-life cycle of that substrate to such an
extent that there would be essentially no human or environmental
exposure to the nanoscale material or nanosized composite, and

2) Measure and characterize exposures to nanomaterials that may leach
from treated materials?

C.  Assuming appropriate studies could adequately show that nanosilver,
which is applied to a substrate, would bind with that substrate to such
an extent that there is essentially no exposure to the nanosilver, does
the Panel think that other types of data (such as toxicity studies on
the nanosilver particles or composite) would be needed?  Similarly, if
only silver ions are released from substrate containing nanosilver,
would consideration of the potential risks associated with the silver
ions be sufficient or would additional data be needed to assess hazards
and exposure to human health and the environment from nanosilver?

3:30 P.M.	Break

3:45 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge

Charge Question 3. Other Risk Assessment Issues.

A.  Products developed using nanotechnology may contain a distribution
of particle sizes.  Please comment on how information concerning the
percentage of the particles in a product falling within the nanoscale
range (e.g., 1 - ~100 nm) could affect the risks of a product.  Are
particles at the lower end of the range (e.g., 1 nm) likely to behave
like particles at the upper end of the range (e.g., 100 nm)?

B.  Please comment on the extent to which the scientific literature
indicates that data on one form of a nanosilver particle or other
nanometal/nanometal oxide particle can be used to assess the potential
hazards and exposures of another form of nanosilver that has different
physicochemical properties (e.g., is a different size or shape or has
different surface properties).  For example, if nanosilver is reacted
with a non-metal material to form a nanosilver complex or composite, to
what extent could data developed for the nanosilver be used to predict
the toxicity of the complex or composite?

C.  Please comment on the extent to which the scientific literature
indicates that nanosilver physicochemical properties change under
different environmental or physiological conditions, what those
conditions are, and how this variation could be best addressed.

5:00 P.M.      ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN CONSULTATION MEETING

November 3 - 6, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of Hazard and Exposure Associated with Nanosilver and Other
Nanometal Pesticide Products

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, November 5, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:40 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Kenneth
Portier, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:50 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge

Charge Question 4.  Research Needs.

A. In the next year, what types of new information on individual
products would be most useful to EPA for assessing potential risks of
antimicrobial pesticides containing nanosilver or nanosilver composites,
such as toxicity studies, exposure studies, etc.

B. What types of long term research would be most helpful for improving
the assessment of the potential risks of antimicrobial pesticide
products containing nanosilver or nanosilver composites?

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

5:00 P.M.      ADJOURN

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN CONSULTATION MEETING

November 3 - 6, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0683

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Evaluation of Hazard and Exposure Associated with Nanosilver and Other
Nanometal Pesticide Products

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Friday, November 6, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

8:40 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Kenneth
Portier, Ph.D., Session Chair, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

8:50 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Panel Discussion of Charge (continued as needed)

5:00 P.M.      ADJOURN

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Joseph Bailey, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(202) 564-8382; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59342-59343]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20714]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 10b-17, SEC File No. 270-427, OMB Control No. 3235-0476.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule 10b-
17 (17 CFR 240.10b-17), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 10b-17 requires any issuer of a class of securities publicly
traded by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate
commerce or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities
exchange to give notice of the following specific distributions
relating to such class of securities: (1) A dividend or other
distribution in cash or in kind other than interest payments on debt
securities; (2) a stock split or reverse stock split; or (3) a rights
or other subscription offering. Notice shall be either given to the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. as successor to the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or in accordance with
the procedures of the national securities exchange upon which the
securities are registered. The Commission may exempt an issuer of over-
the-counter (but not listed) securities from the notice requirement.
The requirements of Rule 10b-17 do not apply to redeemable securities
of registered open-end investment companies or unit investment trusts.

    The information required by Rule 10b-17 is necessary for the
execution of the Commission's mandate under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 to prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and
practices. The Commission has found that not requiring formal notices
of the types of distributions covered by Rule 10b-17 has led to a
number of abuses including purchasers not being aware of their rights
to such distributions. It is only through formal notice of the
distribution, including the date of the distribution, that current
holders, potential buyers, or potential sellers of the securities at
issue will know their rights to the distribution and make an informed
decision as to whether to buy or sell a security.
    There are approximately 7,341 respondents per year. These
respondents make a total of approximately 28,407 responses per year.
Each response takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Thus, the
total compliance burden per year is approximately 4,735 hours. The
total internal labor cost of compliance for respondents associated with
providing notice under Rule 10b-17 is approximately $348,412 per year.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: http://www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom,
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 15, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20714 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 39748]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2016-0057]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated May 23, 2016, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2016-0057.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Railway; Mr. B.L. Sykes, Chief
Engineer, C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA
30309.
    NS seeks approval of the modification of power-operated Switch 17
at Control Point (CP) MO, Milepost (MP) PT 250.5 on the NS Pittsburgh
Line at Cresson, PA.
    Switch 17 will be converted to a hand-operated switch with an
electric lock. Signal 12W will be moved west, placing the converted
switch outside of the limits of CP MO. The method of operation on main
tracks 1 and 3 will be NS Operating Rule 261.
    These changes are being proposed to improve operations in the area.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by August 1, 2016 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-14324 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Notices]                [Page 50397] [DOCID:fr26au08-119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-39]

  Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief

from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to

improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of

FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the

inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to

affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received on or before September 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-

0714 using any of the following methods:

     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.

     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at

202-493-2251.

     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management

Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you

provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can

find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including

the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment

for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's

complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management

Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette Kovite, ANM-113,

Standardization Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2008.

Pamela Hamilton-Powell,

Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0714.

    Petitioner: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.

    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  26.11, 26.43, 26.45, and

26.49.

    Description of Relief Sought: BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd.

requests an exemption from the design approval holder requirements of

Sec. Sec.  26.11, 26.43, 26.45, and 26.49 for the British Aerospace ATP

aircraft type. Section 26.11 requires development of instructions for

continued airworthiness applicable to an airplane's electrical wiring

interconnection system. Sections 26.43, 26.45, and 26.49 are

requirements related to development of damage tolerance data for

repairs and alterations.

 [FR Doc. E8-19709 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50053-50054]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0751]

Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal advisory committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (CFSAC) will
meet via teleconference to discuss CFSAC task statement #01-19. The
U.S. Coast Guard will consider CFSAC recommendations as part of the
process of developing voluntary guidelines for fishing vessel
construction, maintenance, and repair. The teleconference will be open
to the public.

DATES:
    Meeting. The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference
on Wednesday, October 30, 2019, from 1 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early
if the Committee has completed its business.
    Comments and supporting documents: To ensure your comments are
reviewed by Committee members before the teleconference, submit your
written comments no later than October 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To join the teleconference or to request special
accommodations, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 1 p.m. on October 24, 2019.
The number of teleconference lines is limited and will be available on
a first-come, first-served basis.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the teleconference, but if you want Committee
members to review your comments before the teleconference, please
submit your comments no later than October 23, 2019. We are
particularly interested in comments on the issue in the ``Agenda''
section below. You must include the words ``Department of Homeland
Security'' and the docket number [USCG-2019-0751]. Comments received
will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, review Privacy and Security Notice for the Federal Docket
Management at https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. Written
comments may also be submitted using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties
with comment submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Docket Search: For access to the docket or to read documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
insert ``USCG-2019-0751'' in the Search box, press Enter, and then
click on the item you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph D. Myers, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory
Committee,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Jonathan
Wendland, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Commercial
Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., Appendix.
    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by
Title 46 United States Code Section 4508. The Committee's purpose is to
provide advice and recommendations to the United States Coast Guard and
the Department of Homeland Security on matters relating to the safe
operation of commercial fishing industry vessels.

Agenda

    The agenda for the October 30, 2019 meeting, is as follows:
    (1) Introduction.
    (2) Roll call of Committee members and determination of a quorum.
    (3) Comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
    (4) Comments by ADFO Regarding Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory.
    (5) Committee and the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory
Committee.
    (6) Comments by Federal Advisory Committee Act Representative.
    (7) Old Business from the 39th Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory
Committee meeting.
    (8) New Business.
    (9) Comments by Committee Chairman.
    (10) Discussion Task # 01-19 Develop a voluntary best practice
guide to be used by the Commercial Fishing Industry during fishing
vessel construction, maintenance, and repair.
    (11) Public Comment period.
    (12) Comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
    (13) Comments by Committee Chairman.
    (14) Adjournment of meeting.
    A copy of all meeting documentation is available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/fishsafe. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Joseph D.
Myers or Mr. Jonathan Wendland as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.
    Public comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Please
note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted,
following the last call for comments. Please contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register
as a speaker.
    A copy of available meeting documentation will be posted to the
docket, as noted above, and at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for-Prevention-Policy-CG-5P/Inspections-Compliance-CG-5PC-/Commercial-Vessel-Compliance/Fishing-Vessel-Safety-Division/cfsac/ by October 29, 2019. Post-meeting
documentation will be posted to the website, noted above, within 30
days after the meeting, or as soon as possible.

    Dated: September 18, 2019.
David C. Barata,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-20613 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 68426]
[DOCID:fr24de09-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

December 16, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-117-001.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 590 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 effective
12/1/09.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091214-0130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 23, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-188-001.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Arlington Storage Company submits First Revised Sheet
No 4A to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/09/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091210-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 21, 2009.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30584 Filed 12-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55666-55672]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233; FRL-8472-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey:
Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to New
Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on February 6, 2007,
and subsequently revised on July 9, 2007. This revision incorporates
provisions related to the implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR), and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP)
concerning SO2, NOX annual, NOX ozone
season emissions for the State of New Jersey. The SIP revision that EPA
is fully approving is an ``abbreviated'' SIP revision that addresses
the methodology to be used to allocate annual and ozone season NOX
allowances under the CAIR FIPs. The SIP revision that EPA is approving
will also satisfy New Jersey's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to submit a
SIP revision that contains adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through
interstate transport. EPA is not making any changes to the CAIR FIP,
but is amending the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading
rules simply to note approval of New Jersey's SIP revision.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2007-0233. All documents in the docket are available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available,

i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 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 in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information, contact Mr. Kenneth
Fradkin, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, phone number (212)
637-3702 or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's CAIR SIP
Submittal?
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGUs NOX SIP Call
Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the Compliance
Supplement Pool
    F. Individual Opt-in Units
    G. Satisfying Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

CAIR SIP and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Approval

    EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to New Jersey's
SIP, submitted on February 6, 2007, as revised. In response to EPA's
comments provided during New Jersey's rulemaking and in the proposed
approval, New Jersey adopted new rules regarding the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Trading Program on June 19, 2007.
The State submitted these rules to EPA on July 9, 2007. The adoption
was published in the New Jersey Register on July 16, 2007 (39 N.J.R.
2637(a)). The SIP revision modifies the application of certain
provisions of the CAIR FIPs that require emission reductions of
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions. This less comprehensive CAIR SIP is termed an abbreviated
SIP. This revision includes a new regulation, N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Trading Program. As part of
the revision, New Jersey has also adopted N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 to
provide the date when New Jersey's CAIR NOX Trading Program
will replace New Jersey's NOX Budget Trading Program
(Subchapter 31). New Jersey has also adopted ``7:27A-3.10 Civil
administrative penalties for violation of the rules adopted pursuant to
the Act.''
    New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs that implement the CAIR
requirements by requiring certain Electric Generating Units (EGUs) to
participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season cap-and-trade
programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating
NOX allowances for the NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIPs provide that this
methodology, upon approval by EPA, will be used to allocate NOX
allowances to sources in New Jersey, instead of the federal allocation
methodology otherwise provided in the FIPs. The SIP revision also
retires rather than allocates allowances from the NOX annual
Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP).
    EPA has determined that New Jersey's CAIR NOX Trading
Program, as finalized in the New Jersey Register on July 16, 2007 ((39
N.J.R. 2637(a)), satisfies the applicable requirements for an
abbreviated CAIR SIP revision. Consistent with the flexibility provided
in the FIPs, the provisions of New Jersey's CAIR NOX Trading
Program will be used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the
corresponding provisions in the CAIR FIPs for New Jersey. EPA will not
make any changes to the CAIR FIP, but will amend the appropriate
appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note approval of the
New Jersey CAIR NOX Trading Program.
    EPA is also approving ``N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 Replacement of the
NOX Budget Program'' which establishes a transition date for
the replacement of the State's NOX Budget Program
(Subchapter 31), beginning with the 2009 control period, with the New
Jersey CAIR program.
    In addition, EPA is also approving a revision to New Jersey's SIP
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA). This section of the CAA requires each state to submit a SIP
that contains adequate provisions to prohibit sources in the state from
emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute
significantly to downwind nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS, (3) interfere with provisions to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility.
    On July 3, 2007, EPA proposed full approval of New Jersey's SIP
revision provided that New Jersey's final rule was consistent with the
modifications provided in EPA's comments during rulemaking and in its
proposal (72 FR 36406). EPA has determined that New Jersey's revised
CAIR rule, adopted June 19, 2007, has addressed the concerns, discussed
in its comments during rulemaking and in the proposed approval,
regarding shutdown units, correction of allocations to new and existing
units, and prorating for the New Source/Growth Reserve. The comment
period for the EPA proposal closed on August 2, 2007. No comments were
received. EPA is finalizing full approval based on the rationale stated
in the proposal and in this final action.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May
12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 states and
the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour
ozone in downwind states in the eastern part of the country. As a
result, EPA required those upwind states to revise their SIPs to
include control measures that reduce emissions of SO2, which
is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX,
which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5
nonattainment, CAIR sets annual state-wide emission reduction
requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual state-wide
emission reduction requirements for NOX. Similarly, for
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment, CAIR sets state-wide emission reduction requirements for
NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under
CAIR, states may implement these emission budgets by participating in
the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other
control measures.
    CAIR explains to subject states what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA with regard
to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective May 25, 2005, that the
subject states had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were

due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. These May 25, 2005 findings started a 2-
year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section
110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and
must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the
deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On August
17, 2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP submissions states should make to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all states covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR state is subject to the FIPs until the
state fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate
in the EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The
CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements
as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs.
The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that
these trading programs will work together to create effectively a
single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all states
covered by a CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow states to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the
corresponding CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the state), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published CAIR-related final rules that
added the states of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of states
subject to CAIR for PM2.5.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes state-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires states to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs, or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable State SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules
that states must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if
they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only states that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for states that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for states that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Is the Result of EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's CAIR SIP
Submittal?

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR FIP established the EGU budgets for New Jersey as 12,670
tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 10,558 tons for the years
2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NOX annual emissions; 6,654
tons for the years 2009-2014 (Phase I) and 5,545 tons for the years
2015 and beyond (Phase II) for NOX ozone season emissions;
and 32,392 tons for the years 2010-2014 (Phase I) and 22,674 tons for
the years 2015 and beyond (Phase II) for SO2 emissions. New
Jersey's SIP revision does not affect these budgets, which are the
total amount of allowances available for allocation for each year under
the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program under the CAIR FIP. In
short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of
allowances under the established budgets.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season FIPs both largely
mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model trading rule
in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the
NOX annual and ozone-season FIPs are similar, there are some
differences. For example, the NOX annual FIP (but not the
NOX ozone season FIP) provides for a Compliance Supplement
Pool (CSP), discussed below, under which allowances may be awarded for
early reductions of NOX annual emissions. As a further
example, the NOX ozone season FIP reflects the fact that the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading program replaces the
NOX SIP Call trading program for EGUs after the 2008 ozone
season and is coordinated with the NOX SIP Call program.
States also have the option of continuing to meet their NOX
SIP Call non-EGU reduction obligations by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program. In addition,
the NOX ozone season FIP provides incentives for early
emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP
Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NOX
ozone-season trading program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 FIP are also similar to
the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season FIPs.
However, the SO2 FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid
Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV. The
SO2 FIP uses the title IV allowances for compliance, with
each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of
emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter
authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked title IV allowances
allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR
SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading
programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually
identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account
for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    New Jersey is subject to the CAIR FIPs for ozone and
PM2.5 and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season apply to sources
in New Jersey. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to states, the
CAIR FIPs provide that states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that
will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the
CAIR FIP trading programs. The submission by New Jersey on February 6,
2007, as subsequently revised and submitted on

July 9, 2007, is such an abbreviated SIP revision.

C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in a state's NOX SIP
Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises states exercising this option to use provisions for
applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40
CFR 96.304 and add the applicability provisions in the State's
NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability
provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program all units required to be in
the State's NOX SIP Call trading program that are not
already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR
NOX ozone season program must cover all large industrial
boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units
serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that
the State currently requires to be in the NOX SIP Call
trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
New Jersey has chosen not to expand the applicability provisions of the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading program to include all non-
EGUs in the State's NOX SIP Call trading program. New
Jersey's non-EGUs and small electric generating units (EGUs) will be
subject to Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) or state of
the art rules.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIPs, NOX annual
and NOX ozone season allowances are allocated to units that
have operated at least for five years, based on heat input data from a
three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors
of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model
trading rules and the CAIR FIPs also provide a new unit set-aside from
which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances
based on the units' prior year emissions. The CAIR FIPs provide states
the flexibility to establish a different NOX allowance
allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to
sources in the states if certain requirements are met concerning the
timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for
recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each
control period.
    New Jersey has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual and ozone season FIP concerning allowance
allocations with its own methodology. New Jersey will distribute
NOX annual and ozone season allowances to CAIR units based
upon historical electrical and thermal output. Allowances will be
distributed and not auctioned. The distribution of allowances will be
based on the previous three years of data. New Jersey has established
set-asides for new source/growth (``New Source/Growth Reserve''), and
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs or techniques
(``Incentive Reserve''). Each year, New Jersey is allocating ten
percent of the State's CAIR NOX annual and CAIR
NOX ozone season budgets to the New Source/Growth Reserve,
and five percent of the State's CAIR NOX annual and CAIR
NOX ozone season budgets to the Incentive Reserve.
Additional details regarding New Jersey's NOX allocation
methodology can be found in EPA's proposal to approve New Jersey's SIP
revision, which was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007
(72 FR 36406).
    In the proposal published on July 3, 2007, EPA stated that several
provisions of New Jersey's NOX allocation proposal were
inconsistent with the NOX allocation timing requirements of
the abbreviated SIP revision requirements and the CAIR FIP trading
programs. EPA further stated that full approval of New Jersey's
proposed regulation was contingent upon New Jersey modifying their
proposed rule in order to clarify that EPA's NOX allocation
timing requirements will be met under New Jersey's program. Sections
51.123(p)(1)(ii)(B) and (ee)(2)(ii)(C) of CAIR require that the State
determines and notifies the Administrator of each existing unit's
allowance allocation at least 3 years in advance of the CAIR FIP
NOX annual and ozone season programs. Sections
51.123(p)(1)(ii)(C) and (ee)(2)(ii)(D) require that the state
determines, and notifies the Administrator of each new unit's
allowances by October 31 (for the CAIR NOX annual trading
program) or July 31 (for the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program) of the year for which the allowances are being allocated.
    As we indicated in our July 3, 2007 proposal, New Jersey's proposed
regulation did not meet NOX allocation timing requirements
for existing or new units that must surrender and transfer allowances
to EPA for retirement for the year in which the unit shuts down and any
year thereafter. As written in New Jersey's proposed rule, the owner or
operator of an existing unit that is required to surrender allowances
will no longer be able to buy or sell allowances, or undertake other
allowance market activities, that were provided three years in advance
and already recorded into their compliance account. EPA indicated that
it was not clear from New Jersey's proposal what the timing would be
for surrendering the allowances, and whether the State intended for
recorded allowances to be surrendered.
    In response to EPA's comment, New Jersey modified its rule
concerning allocations for shutdown units. EPA has determined that the
modification is acceptable because it terminates future allocations
once a unit is permanently shut down, but does not take back any
allowances that were previously allocated to the unit.
    EPA also indicated, in our July 3, 2007 proposal, that New Jersey's
regulation as proposed did not meet NOX allocation timing
requirements with regard to the provision in New Jersey's rule that
provides the state may determine that existing (or new) units for
current or past years had been erroneously allocated too many or too
few allowances based on inaccurate data or projections. As written in
the proposed rule, it was unclear how long after determination and
recordation of an allocation New Jersey may determine that the
allocation was incorrect.
    In response to EPA's comment, New Jersey modified its rule
concerning the correction of allocations for existing and new units.
EPA has determined that the modification is acceptable because it
allows corrections only before, and not after, the EPA Administrator
records the allocations. This removes the potential for taking back
units' allocations after recordation.
    EPA also indicated in our July 3, 2007 proposal that New Jersey's
proposed rule also provided that if the sum of new unit allocations
(determined by October 31 or July 31 of the year for which allocations
are made) and the existing unit growth allocations (determined by the
end of the year for which allocations are made) exceeded the total
amount of the New Source/Growth Reserve for the year, all the
allocations from the reserve will be reduced on a pro-rata basis so
that the total amount allocated to these new and existing units does
not exceed the reserve. We stated that New Jersey should clarify that
the allocation-proration provisions will be applied to new unit
allocations before the October 31 deadline for NOX annual
submission, or before the July 31 deadline for the NOX ozone
season submission of new unit allocations to EPA and applied to the
existing unit growth allocations

before the March 1 deadline for submission of those allocations to EPA.
    New Jersey modified the proposed rule concerning allocations from
the New Source/Growth Reserve so that the application of pro-rata
distribution of such allocations is performed separately for new units
and for existing units with growth and the process for new units is
performed before new-unit allowances are allocated. EPA has determined
that the modification is acceptable because it removes the potential
for take back of new units' allocations.
    EPA is taking final action to approve New Jersey's methodology for
allocating NOX allowances for the NOX annual and
NOX ozone season trading programs because the methodology is
consistent with the flexibility that CAIR provides states with regard
to allocation methodologies.

E. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the Compliance Supplement Pool

    The Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP) provides an incentive for
early reductions in NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists
of 200,000 CAIR NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for
the entire CAIR region, and a state's share of the CSP is based upon
the state's share of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. The
CAIR NOX annual FIP establishes specific methodologies for
allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an allowed,
alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate CSP
allowances to sources in those states. EPA had allocated to New Jersey
allowances equal to 660 tons of NOX annual emissions for
possible distribution.
    New Jersey has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from
the CSP. New Jersey has chosen to retire all of the CSP allowances
budgeted for New Jersey by not allocating them to CAIR units. EPA is
taking final action to approve New Jersey's retirement of the CSP
allowances budgeted to New Jersey since this is consistent with the
flexibility provided to states under CAIR.

F. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers,
combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices)
that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program
to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading
program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading
programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a
unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet
monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part
75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading
program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a
CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated
allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the
CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two
methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one
methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second
methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the
owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The
rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in
provisions that are essentially the same as those in the respective
CAIR SIP model rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become
effective in a state only if the state's abbreviated SIP revision
adopts the opt-in provisions. The state may adopt the opt-in provisions
entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation
methodologies. The state also has the option of not adopting any opt-in
provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for
the CAIR FIP trading program to be implemented in the State without the
ability for units to opt into the program.
    New Jersey has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting the FIP
specified requirements to participate in the CAIR NOX annual
trading program, the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program,
and the SO2 trading program.

G. Satisfying Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires each state to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that could adversely affect another state.
The SIP must prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts that will: (1) Contribute significantly to downwind
nonattainment of the NAAQS, (2) interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS, (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality, and (4) interfere with efforts to protect
visibility.
    EPA issued guidance on August 15, 2006, relating to SIP submissions
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). As discussed
below, New Jersey's SIP revision with respect to the statutory
requirements is consistent with the guidance.
    New Jersey addresses the first two of these four elements by
complying with the requirements of CAIR. New Jersey satisfies these
requirements either by relying on the existing CAIR FIPs, or through
approval of this SIP revision.
    The third element New Jersey addresses is prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). In accordance with the guidance issued on August
15, 2006, states may continue to rely on their existing Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) and PSD permitting programs to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality within their own boundaries
and in adjacent states. For 8-hour ozone, the state has met the
obligation by confirming that the existing ozone Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) permitting program remains in effect and applies
to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the State's major stationary sources. New
Jersey has noted that the State's current NNSR program retains the
lower applicability levels and higher off-set ratios previously
required under the states 1-hour ozone classification. EPA anticipates
that the state will adopt a final attainment demonstration for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by September 8, 2007. For PM2.5, the State
has confirmed that the state's NNSR and PSD programs are being
implemented in accordance with EPA's interim guidance calling for the
use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. New Jersey
commits to revising its NNSR program and adopting a PSD program after
EPA finalizes its PM2.5 implementation rule.
    It should be noted that the entire State of New Jersey is
nonattainment for 8-hour ozone, necessitating only a NNSR program (not
PSD) for ozone. For PM2.5 the State has both attainment and
non-attainment areas, necessitating both NNSR and PSD programs for
PM2.5.
    Consistent with EPA's August 15, 2006 guidance, at this time, it is
impossible for New Jersey to accurately determine whether there is
interference with measures in another state's SIP designed to protect
visibility, which is the fourth element that was addressed. New Jersey
has indicated that it will address the visibility protection
requirements once the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to
EPA in December of 2007.
    EPA is taking final action finding that the SIP revision adequately
addresses the required elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with the exception
of the requirement to protect visibility. This requirement will be re-
evaluated after the regional haze

SIP is completed and submitted to EPA in December 2007.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to fully approve New Jersey's
abbreviated SIP revision submitted on February 6, 2007, and
subsequently revised on July 9, 2007. New Jersey is covered by the CAIR
FIPs, which require participation in the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-
and-trade for SO2, NOX annual, NOX
ozone season emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and
consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIPs, New Jersey
has adopted under N.J.A.C. 7:27-30, the CAIR NOX Trading
Program, provisions for allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP
NOX annual and ozone season trading programs. In addition,
New Jersey has also adopted at N.J.A.C. 7:27-31.23 the date when New
Jersey's CAIR NOX Trading Program will replace New Jersey's
NOX Budget Trading Program (Subchapter 31). New Jersey has
also adopted in the abbreviated SIP revision provisions that retire CSP
allowances. As provided for in the CAIR FIPs, New Jersey provisions for
allocating NOX annual and ozone season allowances and for
retiring CSP allowances, will replace or supplement the corresponding
provisions of the CAIR FIPs in New Jersey. EPA has determined that New
Jersey's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision meets the applicable
requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee) with regard to NOX
annual and NOX ozone season emissions. EPA is not making
changes to the CAIR FIP, but is amending the appropriate appendices of
40 CFR part 97 in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note approval of
New Jersey's SIP revision.
    EPA is also taking final action regarding the required elements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA has determined that, with the exception of the
protection of visibility requirement, that the SIP revision adequately
addresses the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This requirement will be
re-evaluated after the regional haze SIP is completed and submitted to
EPA in December 2007.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and would
impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule implementing a
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 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 November 30, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: September 18, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 97 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(83) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plans.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (83) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan and submitted on
February 6, 2007 as proposed, and subsequently adopted and submitted on
July 9, 2007 by the State of New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) that establishes rules for the allowance allocation
of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the annual and ozone season
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX Cap and Trade Programs.
The submission also establishes a date when the CAIR NOX
Trading Programs will replace the State's NOX Budget
Program, and satisfies New Jersey's 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligations to
submit a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through
interstate transport.
    (i) Incorporation by reference:
    (A) Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 30 of the New Jersey
Administrative Code entitled ``Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)
NOX Trading Program,'' effective July 16, 2007 and Title 7,
Chapter 27, Subchapter 31, Section 23 of the New Jersey Administrative
Code entitled ``NOX Budget Program,'' effective July 16,
2007.
    (ii) Additional information:
    (A) February 2, 2007 letter from Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson,
NJDEP, to Alan J. Steinberg, EPA, submitting proposed SIP revision, and
request for parallel processing.
    (B) June 26, 2007 letter from Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson, NJDEP,
to Alan J. Steinberg, EPA, submitting SIP revision.
    (C) December 29, 2006 letter from Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson,
NJDEP, to Alan J. Steinberg, EPA, indicating how New Jersey has
addressed the required elements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

0
3. In 52.1605, the table is amended by adding an entry for Subchapter
30 and revising the entry for Subchapter 31 under the heading ``Title
7, Chapter 27'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1605  EPA-approved New Jersey regulations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       State regulation          State effective date        EPA approved date                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                              Title 7, Chapter 27

                                                  * * * * * * *
Subchapter 30, ``Clean Air     July 16, 2007..........  October 1, 2007 [Insert FR
 Interstate Rule (CAIR) NOX                              page citation].
 Trading Program.''.
Subchapter 31, ``NOX Budget    July 16, 2007..........  October 1, 2007 [Insert FR
 Program.''.                                             page citation].

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

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.

0
2. Appendix A to Subpart EE is amended by adding the entry for ``New
Jersey'' in alphabetical order under paragraphs 1. and 2. to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *
    1. * * *

New Jersey

    2. * * *

New Jersey

0
3. Appendix A to Subpart EEEE is amended by adding the entry for ``New
Jersey'' in alphabetical order under the introductory text to read as
follows:

Appendix A to Subpart EEEE of Part 97--States With Approved State
Implementation Plan Revisions Concerning Allocations

* * * * *

New Jersey

[FR Doc. E7-19216 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P