[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50795-50796]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65077; File No. SR-BYX-2011-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend
Pilot Program Related to Clearly Erroneous Execution Reviews

August 9, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 8, 2011, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposal to extend a
pilot program related to Rule 11.17, entitled ``Clearly Erroneous
Executions.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 Exchange 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to extend the effectiveness of the
Exchange's current rule applicable to Clearly Erroneous Executions,
Rule 11.17. The rule, explained in further detail below, is currently
operating as a pilot program set to expire on the earlier of August 11,
2011 or the date on which a limit up/limit down mechanism to address
extraordinary market volatility, if adopted, applies.\3\ The Exchange
proposes to extend the pilot program to January 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64236 (April 7, 2011),
76 FR 20739 (April 13, 2011) (SR-BYX-2011-006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 4, 2010, the Exchange filed an immediately effective
filing to adopt various rule changes to bring BYX Rules up to date with
the changes that had been made to the rules of BATS Exchange, Inc., the
Exchange's affiliate, while BYX's Form 1 Application to register as a
national security exchange was pending approval. Such changes included
changes to the Exchange's Rule 11.17, on a pilot basis, to provide for
uniform treatment: (1) Of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-
stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (2) in the event
transactions occur that result in the issuance of an individual stock
trading pause by the primary market and subsequent transactions that
occur before the trading pause is in effect on the Exchange.\4\ The
Exchange also adopted additional changes to Rule 11.17 that reduced the
ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set
forth in Rule 11.17.\5\ The Exchange believes the benefits to market
participants from the more objective clearly erroneous executions rule
should be approved to continue on a pilot basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63097 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64767 (October 20, 2010) (SR-BYX-2010-002).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the pilot
program promotes just and equitable principles of trade in that it
promotes transparency and uniformity across markets concerning review
of transactions as clearly erroneous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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 imposes
any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\9\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to
waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become
operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because such waiver will allow the
pilot program to continue uninterrupted and help ensure uniformity
among the national securities exchanges and FINRA with respect to the
treatment of clearly erroneous transactions.\10\ Accordingly, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates
the proposed rule change as operative upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self- regulatory organization submit to
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 filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2011-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2011-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received
will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2011-017 and should be submitted on
or before September 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20711 Filed 8-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53734]
[DOCID:fr01se10-122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on June 9, 2010 [FR Doc. 2010-0065, Vol. 75, No. 110, Pages
32838-32839].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlene Doyle, NVS-431, Office of
Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Doyle's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and her e-mail address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS).
    OMB Number: 2127-0642.
    Type of Request: Request for public comment on proposed collection
of information.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposes to conduct information collections to assess the
levels of child restraint system use and misuse for children riding in
passenger vehicles, and to examine whether the levels of use and/or
misuse are related to any specific characteristics of the drivers,
their passengers, the child restraints, and/or the vehicles. Previous
studies have shown that there is a gap between recommended child
restraint use and observed use. Actions have been taken by NTHSA to
close the gap. In March 1999, NHTSA published a final rule establishing
a uniform child restraint attachment system known as LATCH, Lower
Anchors and Tethers for CHildren (Federal Motor Vehicles Safety
Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems and FMVSS 225, Child Restraint
Anchorage Systems), in order to provide another, easier method of
attaching a child restraint to the vehicle. This new collection of data
is necessary in order to evaluate the effectiveness of FMVSS 225 and
FMVSS 213, as well as to obtain an up to date snapshot of child
restraint use and misuse across the United States. This information
will be used in assessing what additional actions NHTSA should take to
improve child passenger safety. In addition, NTHSA will publish the
findings of this research study to provide information to States,
localities, and other interested organizations in support of their
efforts to reduce and prevent injuries among child occupants. NHTSA
proposes to collect observational data on correct and incorrect use of
child restraint systems in passenger vehicles, as well as interview
information from drivers about their knowledge and perceptions of child
restraint systems. The primary population for observation will be
restrained and unrestrained child passengers riding in any seating
position in passenger vehicles. Participation in the study will be
voluntary. Interviews with drivers who agree to participate will be
used to obtain the following data: demographic information on
occupants, the driver's knowledge about the specific CRS in the
vehicle, and the driver's general knowledge and experience with
different types of restraint systems. While the interview is being
conducted, a trained observer will collect information about the CRS in
the vehicle, including the type of restraint that is used, the type of
installation (seat belt or LATCH), how the CRS is installed, harness
use, and seat belt fit. The observer will not remove the child or CRS
from the vehicle.
    Affected Public: Drivers of passenger vehicles who are transporting
children and their passengers.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 880 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

James F. Simons,
Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 2010-21871 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 95428-95430]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7043; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-6]

Amendment of Class E Airspace, Blue Mesa, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E en route domestic airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface near the Blue Mesa
VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/
DME), Blue Mesa, CO. The FAA has transitioned to a more accurate method
of measuring, publishing, and charting airspace areas that has revealed
some small areas of

uncharted uncontrolled airspace. The FAA found modification of these
areas of uncontrolled airspace necessary to ensure the safety of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations and the efficient use of
navigable airspace, including point-to-point off-airway clearances, and
aircraft vectoring services.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also
available for inspection at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order
7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at the Blue Mesa VOR/DME, Blue Mesa, CO.

History

    On August 8, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Blue Mesa, CO (81
FR 52369) Docket FAA-2016-7043. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E En route domestic airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface in the vicinity of the Blue
Mesa VOR/DME, Blue Mesa, CO. One small airspace area northwest, near
Montrose, CO, and one small airspace area southeast, near Trinidad, CO,
are added for the safety and management of IFR operations, specifically
point-to-point, en route operations outside of the established airway
structure, and Air Traffic Control vectoring services.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August, and effective September 15, 2016,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006: En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.
* * * * *

ANM CO E6 Blue Mesa, CO [Amended]

Blue Mesa VOR/DME, CO
(Lat. 38[deg]27'08'' N., long. 107[deg]02'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 35[deg]39'30'' N., long.
107[deg]25'27'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]14'38'' N., long. 107[deg]40'25''
W.; to lat. 37[deg]16'00'' N., long. 108[deg]22'00'' W.; to lat.
37[deg]58'51'' N, long.

108[deg]22'29'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]01'00'' N., long. 107[deg]47'00''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]07'40'' N, long. 107[deg]13'47'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]11'48'' N., long. 106[deg]29'16'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]40'23''
N., long. 103[deg]29'02'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]59'57'' N., long.
104[deg]18'04'' W.; to lat. 36[deg]17'00'' N., long. 104[deg]14'00''
W.; to lat. 36[deg]12'53'' N., long. 104[deg]56'21'' W.; to lat.
36[deg]13'34'' N., long. 105[deg]54'42'' W.; thence to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on December 12, 2016.
Tracey Johnson,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-30651 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26294-26295]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0347]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants from the
Metropolitan Car Club to cross the bridge, in a police escorted
motorcade. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position during the motorcade.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 1:30 p.m. through 2:30 p.m. on
June 26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0347 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0347
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Caltrans requested a temporary change to the
operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, Sacramento River, at
Sacramento, CA. The Tower Drawbridge navigation span provides a
vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-
navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through
October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal
if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189.
Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 1:30 p.m. through 2:30 p.m. on June 26, 2009 to allow participants
from the Metropolitan Car Club to cross the bridge, in a police
escorted motorcade. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with
waterway users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or
anticipated levee maintenance during this deviation period. No
objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 10
minutes advance notice.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
P.F. Zukunft,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-12786 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39413-39414]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8441-1]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given
of a proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Sierra Club v.
Johnson, No. 1:07CV00414 (RWR) (D. D.C.). On February 28, 2007, Sierra
Club filed a deadline suit to compel the Administrator to respond to a
petition dated June 12, 2006, seeking EPA's objection to a CAA Title V
operating permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality to the
Hugh L. Spurlock Station, operated by the East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA
has agreed to respond to Sierra Club's petition by August 31, 2007. The
consent decree allows Sierra Club sixty (60) days following entry of
the decree by the Court to file a motion for costs of litigation
(including attorneys' fees).

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2007-0598, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Smith, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On June 12, 2006, Sierra Club submitted a petition to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to CAA
section 505(b)(2), requesting that he object to issuance of a Title V
operating permit by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality to the Hugh L.
Spurlock Station, operated by the East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.
Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA shall grant or deny
Sierra Club's petition no later than August 31, 2007. The consent
decree allows Sierra Club sixty (60) days following entry of the decree
by the Court to file a motion for costs of litigation (including
attorneys' fees). The consent decree becomes an order of the Court upon
entry, and, consistent with the terms of the consent decree, the case
shall be dismissed with prejudice after EPA has fulfilled its
obligation and Sierra Club's claims for litigation costs have been
resolved.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties
or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that
consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the
decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0598) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or

view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless

the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA

electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 11, 2007.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E7-13903 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Crop: California Strawberry Nursery Association Many nursery systems worldwide, as well as fruit producers worldwide, depend on California as a source of pesth and pathogen free stock. Deep, uniform fumigation is essential to produce plants with the necessary level of cleanliness. Currently, no alternative has been identified that can achieve the same level of pathogen and pest control. Because plants are so widely distributed, any disease and insect problems tha Northern California, Southern Oregon, Sacramento Valley, Northern San Joaquin Valley strawberry nursery plants Reduces yield, does not have the same pathogen, nematode and weed control as MeBr/ Pic. Cannot control pathogens and pests deeply enough in the soil profile. Reasons Reduces yield, does not have the same pathogen, nematode and weed control as MeBr/ Pic. Cannot control pathogens and pests deeply enough in the soil profile.

Reduces yield, does not have the same pathogen, nematode and weed control as MeBr/ Pic. Cannot control pathogens and pests deeply enough in the soil profile.

1,3 D, Chloropicrin, Metam Sodium 1,3 D, Metam Sodium Potential Alternatives 1,3 D, Chloropicrin Place an " X" in the column( s) labeled " Not Technically Feasible" and/ or " Not Economically Feasible" where appropriate. Use the " Reasons" column to describe why the potential alternative is not feasible. Fumigation cycle:

Year: Comparable data:

2 year example:

Other beneficiary example Crop cycle change example: If a methyl bromide fumigation is made every 2 years, then the 2001 fumigation cycle began in 2001 and would end in 2003. The data should cover the methyl bromide costs and usage for the methyl bromide fumigation made in 2001, and all yields and revenues received and other costs incurred during the 2 year period. To be comparable, the data on alternatives should cover a similar 2 year period beginning in 2005 beginning at the same time of year when a methyl bromide fumigation would be made. The data should cover all methyl bromide alternatives used,

and all yields and revenues received during that 2 year interval. Other pest control and other costs would only need to be provided for that interval if they would change from what they were with methyl bromide.

If someone other than the applicant benefits from a methyl bromide fumigation, you should comment on these benefits if you do not have quantitative data for the entire fumigation cycle.

For example, if a rotational crop in the second year benefits from a methyl bromide fumigation a year earlier, but there is quantitative data only on the first crop, then the data on the alternatives should cover only the first crop, and the benefits of methyl bromide and the additional pesticides that would have to be used on the rotational crop should be discussed in the comments sections.

If in a one year interval, methyl bromide is applied, tomatoes are grown and harvested followed by peppers, then the fumigation cycle would be one year including the tomatoes and peppers. If,

however, without methyl bromide, it is not possible to follow tomatoes with peppers in the same one year interval, then the alternative data on pesticides, costs, yields, and revenues should just cover tomatoes. The loss of profit from not being able to grow peppers with the alternatives would be part of the loss from not having methyl bromide.

Fumigation Cycle Definitions:

In order to compare revenues and costs with and without methyl bromide, data on alternatives for pest control, yields, revenues, and costs must be for the same time interval as the methyl bromide fumigation cycle. If, however, quantitative data, is not available for the entire fumigation cycle,

then to be comparable, the quantitative data for the alternatives should cover the same portion of the fumigation cycle as the quantitative data for methyl bromide, and the rest of the cycle should be discussed in the comments sections.

If a fumigation cycle overlaps more than one calendar year, " year" refers to the calendar year when methyl bromide is applied ( or the beginning of the cycle).

The period of time between methyl bromide fumigations.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 15402]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05567]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[ File No. 500-1]

 Xytos, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

March 6, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Xytos, Inc. (``Xytos'') because of questions regarding the adequacy and
accuracy of information Xytos publicly disseminates concerning the
company's financial conditions and business operations, and because of
potentially manipulative conduct in the trading of Xytos shares.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on
March 6, 2013 through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 19, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Lynn M. Powalski,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-05567 Filed 3-7-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69806-69812]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27992]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0694, FRL-9903-28-OAR]

Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for
Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 4, 2013, in Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court (Court) remanded to the EPA the
``Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule'' (April 25, 2007)
and the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' final
rule (May 16, 2008) (collectively, ``1997 PM2.5
Implementation Rules''). The Court found that the EPA erred in
implementing the 1997 PM2.5 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pursuant solely to the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), without also considering the particulate
matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of Part D. The Court's ruling
remanded the rules to the EPA to address implementation of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4. This proposed rulemaking
identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5
standards, the deadlines for states to submit attainment-related and
new source review (NSR) state implementation plan (SIP) elements
required for these areas pursuant to subpart 4, and the EPA guidance
that is currently available regarding subpart 4 requirements. The
proposed deadlines for 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 attainment-
related SIP submissions and NSR requirements for nonattainment areas
would replace previous deadlines that were set solely pursuant to
subpart 1. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to identify the initial
classification of current 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment areas as ``moderate,'' and the EPA is proposing to set a
deadline of December 31, 2014, for submission of remaining required SIP
submissions for these areas, pursuant to and considering the
application of subpart 4. This rulemaking affects eight nonattainment
areas in five states.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before December 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0694 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2013-0694, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Mail Code:
28221T. Please include two copies if possible. In addition, please mail
a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0694, Environmental
Protection Agency in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in
the WJC West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center.
     Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2013-0694. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change and may be made
available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any CD you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters and any form of encryption and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the WJC West Building,
located at 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further general information on
this rulemaking, contact Ms. Mia South, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C539-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal include
state, local and tribal governments.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to the 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 to be CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information marked CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this notice will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/actions.html.

 D. How is this notice organized?

    The information presented in this notice is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    D. How is this notice organized?
II. What actions is the EPA proposing?
III. Background for Proposal
IV. Proposed Initial Identification of ``Moderate'' Classification
for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas Under Subpart 4
V. Proposed Deadlines for Submission of Remaining Required
Attainment-Related SIP Elements
VI. What guidance is currently available to States regarding subpart
4 requirements?
VII. Proposed Actions
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    Statutory Authority
List of Subjects

II. What actions is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA's proposed rulemaking responds to the Court's remand in
NRDC v. EPA by notifying the states of the EPA's initial modification
of its previous approach to implementation of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards. This proposed rulemaking identifies: (1)
The classification under subpart 4 of areas currently designated
nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards; (2)
the deadline for states to submit any remaining attainment-related and
NSR SIP submissions required pursuant to subpart 4; and (3) the EPA
guidance and relevant rulemakings that are currently available
regarding implementation of subpart 4 requirements. Specifically, the
EPA is proposing to identify the initial classification of areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and the 2006
PM2.5 standards as ``moderate,'' and to set a deadline of
December 31, 2014, for submission of any attainment-related and NSR SIP
elements that may be due for these areas in consideration of the
requirements under subpart 4. Additional details regarding attainment-
related and NSR SIP elements requirements of subpart 4 may also be
addressed under separate EPA guidance and/or rulemaking. With regard to
SIPs that previously have been submitted solely under the requirements
of subpart 1, and which are now also subject to subpart 4 requirements,
states should consult with their respective EPA regional offices for
assistance in evaluating the appropriate course for addressing the
effect of subpart 4 requirements on these submissions and for
accomplishing any additional state work and the EPA review. The EPA
expects that the existing submittals will already satisfy many of the
subpart 4 requirements, and, to the extent that additional information
is needed for specific requirements, every effort will be made to avoid
duplicative work from the states.

III. Background for Proposal

    On January 4, 2013, in NRDC v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court remanded
to the EPA the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rules. 706 F.3d 428
(D.C. Cir. 2013). Prior to the Court's decision, and continuously since
2005, the EPA had implemented the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
pursuant to regulations and guidance \1\ that were based on the general
implementation provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA.
The Court found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS solely pursuant to subpart 1 of Part D of Title
I of the CAA, without consideration of the particulate matter-specific
provisions of subpart 4 of Part D. In this proposed rulemaking, the EPA
takes additional steps to respond to the Court's remand,\2\ and to
address the implementation of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
under subpart 4. In light of the long history of implementation of
these standards under subpart 1, the EPA's proposal seeks to integrate
and harmonize ongoing implementation under subpart 1 with the subpart 4
requirements the Court has directed the EPA to address.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Regional Air Directors, Region I-X, March 2, 2012.
This guidance was withdrawn on June 6, 2013.
    \2\ The EPA has previously addressed the NRDC decision and the
role of subpart 4 in PM2.5 implementation in numerous
rulemakings on individual areas. See areas listed in footnote 4,
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Initial Identification of ``Moderate'' Classification for
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas Under Subpart 4

    Subpart 1 of Part D contains no nondiscretionary provision for
classification of nonattainment areas, although it authorizes the EPA
to make classifications if it considers such classification
appropriate. As a result, under the EPA's prior approach to
implementing the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, the EPA did
not identify any classifications for areas designated nonattainment for
those standards. By contrast, subpart 4 of the CAA, section 188,
provides that all areas designated nonattainment are initially
classified ``by operation of law'' as ``moderate'' nonattainment areas,
and they remain classified as moderate nonattainment areas unless and
until the EPA later reclassifies them as serious nonattainment
areas.\3\ Pursuant to this provision, the EPA is proposing in this
notice to identify the classification of all PM2.5 areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS as
``moderate.'' Thus the provisions of subpart 4 relevant to areas
currently designated nonattainment for 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS would initially be those applicable to moderate
areas. For more information on current nonattainment areas, see 1997
PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas, http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/
greenbk/

qnc.html and 2006 PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas, http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/rnc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the General Preamble, the EPA has previously addressed
the requirements of section 188 concerning classifications under
subpart 4, including the issue of discretionary and mandatory
reclassification from moderate to serious. See 57 FR 13498, at
13537-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The areas that are most clearly affected by this rule are areas
that did not submit a SIP under subpart 1 and which do not have a clean
data determination or which have not yet submitted a redesignation
request. The states and specific nonattainment areas affected for the
PM2.5 1997 areas are Libby, MT, San Joaquin Valley, CA and
the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA. For the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the states and specific
nonattainment areas affected are Fairbanks, AK, Imperial County, CA,
Liberty-Clairton, PA, Provo, UT and Salt Lake City, UT.
    The subpart 4 requirements for areas classified as moderate are
generally comparable to those of subpart 1. The general provisions for
requirements for all nonattainment areas for subpart 4 include: (1)
Section 189 (a)(1)(A) (NSR permit program); (2) section 189 (a)(1)(B)
(attainment demonstration); (3) section 189 (a)(1)(C) [reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonable available control
technology (RACT)]; (4) section 189 (c) [request for proposals (RFP)
and quantitative milestones]; and (5) section 189 (e) (precursor
requirements for major stationary sources). Subpart 4 also includes
additional statutory SIP planning requirements in the event that EPA
reclassifies a moderate nonattainment area to a serious nonattainment
area and in the event the area needs additional extensions of time to
attain the NAAQS. The General Preamble and Addendum provide useful
additional guidance on the specific subpart 4 statutory requirements.

V. Proposed Deadlines for Submission of Remaining Required Attainment-
Related SIP Elements

    In 2013, the D.C. Circuit Court in NRDC v. EPA directed the EPA to
modify its regulatory approach to implementing the 1997
PM2.5 standard solely under subpart 1. The EPA's subpart 1-
based rulemakings were issued in 2007 and 2008, and for more than 5
years they have governed the EPA's and the states' implementation
efforts. Prior to the Court's decision, states understandably have
worked towards meeting the air quality goals of the 1997 and 2006
standards in accordance with the EPA regulations and guidance derived
from subpart 1. During this time, many PM2.5 nonattainment
areas have attained the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards and/or
submitted SIPs aimed at attainment, including, among other
requirements, nonattainment NSR permitting programs. The EPA must
therefore respond to the Court's remand in the context of the states'
prior and ongoing efforts to attain the standards under the framework
of subpart 1. The EPA takes this history into account in proposing to
set a new deadline for any remaining submissions that may be required
for a moderate nonattainment area due to the applicability of subpart
4. It is important for EPA to set a new deadline in order to give
states the opportunity to address the interpretation announced by the
Court earlier this year. In rulemakings on individual areas subsequent
to the Court's decision, the EPA has explained in detail its view that
the Court's recently announced interpretation should not be applied
retroactively. See, for example, ``Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Redesignation of the
Indianapolis Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine
Particulate Matter'' (78 FR 20856, April 8, 2013--proposal), (78 FR
41698, July 11, 2013--final). The EPA has continued to consider and act
upon submissions already made, explaining in those individual
rulemakings how the EPA has taken into account the NRDC Court's
decision.\4\ Notwithstanding those actions, there are areas for which
states are required to make additional submissions under subparts 1 and
4. With respect to those areas the EPA believes that states should be
provided a reasonable opportunity to make such submissions based on the
EPA interactions with states regarding the implementation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS for the areas likely to be most affected by this
rule, we anticipate that establishing a clear submittal date would help
support NAAQS implementation and that approximately 1 year would
provide an additional amount of time for development of any additional
SIP submittal for these areas if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition to the Indianapolis redesignation, since the
NRDC Court's decision, the EPA has considered the role of subpart 4
in PM2.5 implementation in a number of other individual
rulemakings: ``Redesignation of Ohio Portions of Parkersburg-
Marietta and Wheeling Areas to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter'' (78 FR 53275, August 29,
2013), ``Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment
of the 1997 and 2006 Standards for Fine Particulate Matter'' (78 FR
53272, August 29, 2013), ``Redesignation of the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards'' (78 FR
57270, September 18, 2013), ``Redesignation of Ohio Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour
Standards'' (78 FR 57273, September 18, 2013), ``Redesignation of
Dayton-Springfield, OH Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM-2.5'' (78 FR
59258, September 26, 2013), ``Redesignation of Canton-Massillon OH
Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM-2.5'' (78 FR 62459, October 22,
2013), and ``Proposed Approval of Delaware Attainment Plan for the
Delaware Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington, Pennsylvania-New
Jersey-Delaware Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter Standard'' (78 FR 57573, September 19, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is therefore proposing to set a deadline of December 31,
2014, for the states to submit any additional attainment-related SIP
elements that may be needed to meet the applicable requirements of
subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the 1997
and/or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and to submit SIPs addressing the
nonattainment NSR requirements in subpart 4. The EPA believes that this
period provides a relatively brief but reasonable amount of time for
states to ascertain whether and to what extent any additional
submissions are needed for a particular 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area,\5\ and to develop, adopt and submit any such SIPs.
Section 188(c)(1) of Subpart 4 establishes an attainment deadline of no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after designation as
nonattainment. With respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
nonattainment area designations for most areas became effective in
December 2009 (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). Thus, these areas are
subject to an attainment deadline under subpart 4 of no later than
December 31, 2015. A SIP submission deadline of December 31, 2014, for
these areas will therefore ensure that there is at least a year between
SIP submission and attainment deadlines.\6\ The December 31, 2014,

deadline would allow a brief but reasonable amount of time for the
states to modify their SIPs in consideration of subpart 4 in keeping
with the timeframe established by the existing subpart 4 attainment
deadline. With respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
although nonattainment area designations in most areas became effective
more than 8 years ago (see 70 FR 944, January 5, 2005), we are
proposing to establish for these areas the same subpart 4 SIP
submission deadline that would apply for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (December 31, 2014), so that all states with
PM2.5 nonattainment areas have a reasonable amount of time
to develop any additional SIP elements that may be required under
subpart 4 in response to the NRDC decision. Thus, for all
PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the states would be required to
submit any remaining attainment-related SIPs that are necessary to
satisfy the requirements applicable to moderate nonattainment areas
under section 189(a) of the Act no later than December 31, 2014. This
proposal does not affect any action that the EPA has previously taken
under section 110(k) of the Act on a SIP for a PM2.5
nonattainment area. As noted in the section below, because subpart 4
incorporates the requirements of subpart 1 and affects the requirements
that it subsumes, the EPA is proposing that the December 31, 2014,
deadline replaces the deadlines previously set for submissions designed
solely for subpart 1. By coordinating implementation of subpart 4 and
subpart 1 submissions, and clarifying the deadline for submission of
additional subpart 4 requirements, the proposed rule will help states
and areas understand and efficiently discharge any remaining
responsibilities. The proposed rule will also facilitate the processing
of requests to redesignate 1997 and 2006 nonattainment areas to
attainment, since clear deadlines for submissions of requirements will
provide a means for identifying applicable requirements for purposes
evaluating redesignation requests.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The answers to these questions will depend upon the
circumstances of each individual nonattainment area, including
whether the area's monitored air quality meets the standard, and
whether the state has already made attainment-related and NSR SIP
submissions for the area. As the EPA has explained in its proposed
rulemaking on Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Indiana; Redesignation of the Indianapolis
Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate
Matter (78 FR 20856, April 8, 2013), it is also important to
evaluate, for each area, the interrelationship of the two subparts,
and whether the substance of subpart 1 and subpart 4 provisions,
should, for certain purposes, be considered equivalent.
    \6\ The EPA designation for the West Central Pinal area in
Arizona as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standard became effective March 7, 2011. See 76 FR 6056, February 3,
2011. Although the latest attainment date applicable to this area
under subpart 4 is December 31, 2017 (2 years later than the
December 31, 2015, attainment date that applies to areas designated
nonattainment in 2009), the EPA is proposing to require Arizona to
submit an attainment SIP meeting the requirements of subpart 4 for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard for this area by the same
December 31, 2014, date that we are proposing for other
nonattainment areas. The December 31, 2014, SIP submission date
would supplant the March 7, 2014, date by which the state was
previously required under subpart 1 to submit a PM2.5
attainment SIP for this area, and would provide a reasonable amount
of additional time for the state to both develop the required
subpart 4 SIP elements and implement its control strategy in advance
of the applicable attainment date.
    \7\ As explained in the EPA's proposed redesignation of the
Indianapolis Area to Attainment for the 1997 PM2.5
Standard, in evaluating redesignation requests, the EPA's
longstanding interpretation is that ``applicable requirements'' are
those whose deadline for submission occurs prior to the state's
submission of a complete redesignation request. 78 FR 20856, 20861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What guidance is currently available to States regarding subpart 4
requirements?

    The EPA has longstanding general guidance that interprets the 1990
amendments to the CAA, making recommendations to states for meeting the
statutory requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title
I of the Clear Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16,
1992) (the ``General Preamble''). In the General Preamble, the EPA
discussed the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 SIP requirements,
and pointed out that subpart 1 requirements were to an extent
``subsumed by, or integrally related to, the more specific PM-10
requirements.'' 57 FR at 13538. In recent rulemakings for individual
areas published after the NRDC Court decision, the EPA has further
elaborated on the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 requirements
in the context of an area that has attained the 1997 PM2.5
standard and requested redesignation to attainment. ``Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter'' (78 FR 20856, April 8, 2013--
proposal) (78 FR 41698, July 11, 2013--final). The EPA believes that
both the General Preamble and its recent rulemakings on Indianapolis
and other areas provide helpful guidance for states in ascertaining the
impact of subpart 4 requirements on their ongoing efforts to meet the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.\8\ For help with questions or
further clarification, states should consult their respective EPA
regional offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See also ``Redesignation of Ohio Portions of Parkersburg-
Marietta and Wheeling Areas to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
Standard for Fine Particulate Matter'' (78 FR 53275, August 29,
2013), ``Redesignation of the Detroit-Ann Arbor Area to Attainment
of the 1997 and 2006 Standards for Fine Particulate Matter'' (78 FR
53272, August 29, 2013); ``Redesignation of the Cleveland-Akron-
Lorain Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Standards'' (78 FR
57270, September 18, 2013), ``Redesignation of Ohio Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour
Standards'' (78 FR 57273, September 18, 2013), ``Redesignation of
Dayton-Springfield, OH Nonattainment Area for 1997 PM-2.5'' (78 FR
59258, September 26, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Actions

    This rule responds to the Court's decision in NRDC v. EPA, supra.
The Court found that the EPA erred in implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant solely to the general implementation
provisions of subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, without also
considering the particulate matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of
Part D. The EPA proposes to identify the initial classification of
current 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas as moderate.
For these areas, the EPA is also proposing to set December 31, 2014, as
the deadline for any remaining required attainment-related and
nonattainment NSR SIP submissions, pursuant to and considering the
application of subpart 4. The EPA is soliciting comment, specifically
on the proposed deadlines for submission of remaining SIP requirements.
    There are two main categories of areas most affected by this rule:
(1) Areas that did not submit a SIP under subpart 1 and (2) areas which
do not have a clean data determination or which have not yet submitted
a redesignation request. The states and specific nonattainment areas
affected for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are Libby, MT, San Joaquin
Valley, CA and the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA. For the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the states and specific nonattainment areas
affected are Fairbanks, AK, Imperial County, CA, Liberty-Clairton, PA,
Provo, UT and Salt Lake City, UT. Using the most up to date status of
SIP submissions and approved SIPs, the EPA will continue working with
states on a case-by-case basis, based on their stage of SIP
development, to address subpart 4 requirements.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This proposed rulemaking
identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas currently
designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5
standards and the deadline for states to submit attainment-related SIP
elements for these areas that are required pursuant to subpart 4.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any regulation subject
to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201;) (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements directly on small
entities. Entities potentially affected directly by this proposal
include state, local and tribal governments and none of these
governments are small governments. Other types of small entities are
not directly subject to the requirements of this rule because this
action only identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 standards and the deadline for states to submit
attainment-related SIP elements for these areas that are required
pursuant to subpart 4.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore,
this action is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
rulemaking identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 standards and the deadline for states to submit
attainment-related SIP elements for these areas that are required
pursuant to subpart 4.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The requirement to submit SIP
revisions to meet the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS requirements
under subpart 4 is imposed by the CAA. This proposed rule, if made
final, would interpret those requirements as they apply to the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with the EPA
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed
action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, since no
tribe has to develop an implementation plan under these proposed
regulatory revisions. Furthermore, these proposed regulation revisions
do not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. The
CAA and the Tribal Air Rule establish the relationship of the federal
government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and
these revisions to the regulations do nothing to modify that
relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action
from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O.
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. This proposed
rulemaking identifies the classification under subpart 4 for areas
currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 and/or 2006
PM2.5 standards and the deadline for states to submit
attainment-related SIP elements for these areas that are required
pursuant to subpart 4.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rulemaking identifies the classification
under subpart 4 for areas currently designated nonattainment for the
1997 and/or 2006 PM2.5 standards and the deadline for states
to submit attainment-related SIP elements for these areas that are
required pursuant to subpart 4.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C.
7401, 7408, 7410, 7501-7509a, and 7601(a)(1).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compound.

    Dated: November 15, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-27992 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                          SUPPORTING STATEMENTPART A

                 PRODUCTION OUTLOOK REPORTS FOR UN-REGISTERED
                           RENEWABLE FUELS PRODUCERS

A.	JUSTIFICATION

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

a.	Title:   Production Outlook Reports for Un-Registered Renewable Fuels Producers; EPA ICR No.  2409.01; OMB Control Number 2060-NEW

b. 	Short characterization:

	 With this information collection request (ICR), we are seeking permission to accept production outlook reports from domestic or foreign renewable fuel producers who are not currently regulated parties under the RFS2 program.  The respondents for this ICR are not regulated parties under the RFS2 program and are therefore, not required to register or report under the RFS2 regulations.  Submission of production outlook information to EPA under this ICR will be on a voluntary basis.

      The information that respondents provide will allow EPA to more accurately project cellulosic biofuel volumes for the following calendar year, and these volume projections will form the basis of the percentage standards EPA sets under the RFS2 program.  Without information from these respondents, EPA's volume projections are more likely to fall below actual projection volumes.  Under such circumstances, actual supply for cellulosic biofuel will exceed the demand created by the standards EPA sets, and the value of cellulosic biofuel Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) will fall.  RINs are marketable credits that correspond to a given volume of renewable fuel.  Since RIN market price directly affects the economic viability of cellulosic biofuel production, low RIN prices could present economic difficulties to producers.  Thus, it is in the interests of these respondents to provide this information to EPA, as doing so could ensure that the market price of RINs appropriately reflects the value of their cellulosic biofuel.  This information also serves a more general program purpose, because it will assist EPA in setting the annual RFS2 standards more accurately for biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel.  Compiling this information may also assist respondents with their planning and compliance activities.  We believe that many parties would wish to submit this information in order to receive better assistance in understanding and preparing to comply with the RFS2 regulations

      We anticipate that approximately 35 parties will elect to participate in this information collection, nearly all of whom would submit information during the first year of the ICR.  The format for submitting the production outlook information to EPA would follow the "RFS2 Production Outlook Form, Report Form ID: RFS0900." Reporting by regulated parties is covered under the RFS2 ICR, OMB Control No. 2060-0640 (Expiration Date:  July 31, 2013.) A copy of the current RFS0900 form and its instructions are available at:

         * Instructions:  www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfs0900.pdf
         * Form:  www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/rfs0900.xls

.

2.  Need For, and Use of, the Collection

      a. Authority for the Collection

	Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7414 and 7542, authorize EPA to require recordkeeping and reporting regarding enforcement of the provisions of Title II of the CAA.   This voluntary collection of information is related to the RFS2 program.

	b. 	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

	As discussed above in "Short Characterization," collection of this information will assist EPA in setting accurate annual standards under the RFS2 rule and will assist respondents with their planning and compliance activities.

3.  Non-duplication, Consultation, and other Collection Criteria

	a. 	Non-duplication

	Efforts have been made to eliminate duplication in this information collection.

      b. 	Public Notice

	On October 14, 2010, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing our intent to submit this proposed ICR to OMB for approval.  (See 75 FR 63173).  The comment period closed on December 14, 2010.  No comments were received.

	c. 	Consultations

	We have drawn upon our experience with RFS1, RFS2, and with similar fuels regulations to develop the estimates in this supporting statement.  We are soliciting comments on our estimates via the Federal Register notice and have prepared this document for the public docket.

	d. 	Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection

	This is a voluntary information collection.  If EPA could not collect this information, then both the respondent and the Agency would be disadvantaged.  EPA would base its RFS2 standard setting on incomplete information, and this in turn would have a negative effect upon the respondents.  Collecting this information would allow EPA to assist the respondents in compliance, as the respondents would be subject to the RFS2 regulations in the future.

	e. 	General Guidelines

	This proposed ICR does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines.

	f. 	Confidentiality

	We will inform respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality (CBI) for information they submit. Any information claimed as confidential will be treated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 and established Agency procedures.  Information that is received without a claim of confidentiality may be made available to the public without further notice to the submitter under 40 CFR § 2.203.

      g. 	Sensitive Information

	This information collection does not require submission of any sensitive information.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

	a.	Respondents/with NAICS and SIC Codes

      The respondents to this information collection are renewable fuel producers who are expected to fall under the general category of petroleum refineries (324110/2911), ethyl alcohol manufacturers (325193/2869), and/or other basic organic chemical manufacturing (325199/2869).  We expect that 35 parties elect to participate in this information collection.  (Since this information collection is voluntary in nature, the actual number is determined by the respondents themselves.)

	b.	Information Requested

	The information requested includes the information collected on the RFS0900 form.  Parties may submit some, or all, of the information and submission of the information is voluntary. Parties do not have to use the form, but we plan to provide it as a convenience for those who wish to use it.

5.  The Information Collected, Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

a.	Agency Activities

      The Agency may contact respondents if there is a question about their submission.  We already perform this activity for required reports submitted under the RFS2 program and do not anticipate that this proposed collection will add any significant burden.

b. 	Collection and Methodology and Management

	We anticipate accepting this information in various formats, including electronically.  Information claimed as CBI will be stored in appropriately controlled areas.

c.	Small Entity Flexibility

	This collection will not adversely affect small entities.  This collection is a voluntary collection and there will be no adverse consequences if a party elects not to submit the information.

d.	Collection Schedule

	This would be a voluntary collection and, as result, this collection is not subject to any set collection schedule.  Respondents may submit all, or some, of the information on the production outlook report at will.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection

      a.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We drew upon experience implementing similar regulations among the same entities to develop estimates of the burden associated with this collection.

      b.	Estimating the Respondent Burden and Cost

	Three labor categories are involved:  managerial (includes legal and professional review), technical, and clerical. The estimates use the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - Table 12 - Private Industry, Manufacturing, and Non-Manufacturing Industries by Occupational Group" (December 2003), with a 3% annual inflation factor applied to bring the values to the present.  Using this method, the following wages and benefits apply by category:

Wages and Benefits

Managerial 		$53.87 per hour
Technical		$35.29 per hour
Clerical		$24.56 per hour

Doubling for company overhead beyond wages and benefits, and for convenience, rounding up to the dollar, gives the following rates for this ICR:

Total Employer Cost

Managerial		$108 per hour
Technical		$71 per hour
Clerical		$49 per hour

It is assumed that for each hour of activity the mix will be about 0.1 hour managerial, 0.7 hour technical, and 0.2 hour clerical.  This gives an average labor cost of $71 per hour, which will be used in this ICR.  We estimate the following burden:

                             Number of Respondents
                       Number of Reports per Respondent
                          Annual Hours per Response*

                               Cost per Response
                                   @ $71/hr.
                               Total Hours/Year
                                  Total Cost
                              In Dollars/Year ($)
35
1
4
284.00
140
9,940
* We believe that each report would take up to 12 hours to complete at $71/hour, and  have divided 12 by three in order to determine an annual burden (over the three year period covered by this proposed ICR). We estimate that most respondents would elect to submit reports during the first year covered by this proposed ICR.

c.  	Estimating the Agency Burden and Cost

      We do not anticipate any significant Agency burden associated with reviewing these voluntary submissions.  We expect that the burden of reviewing these few reports is already adequately covered by the RFS2 ICR.  As with all items in this supporting statement, we strongly encourage comment on the estimated Agency burden and on the Agency activities associated with this proposed information collection.

d.	Estimating the Respondent Universe

	We were able to estimate the number of regulated entities drawing upon experience regulating the same or similar entities.

e.	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

	From "Estimating the Respondent Burden and Cost," we estimate the following totals:

TOTAL NO. OF RESPONDENTS:    	35
TOTAL NO. OF RESPONSES:		35
TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS:    	    	140
TOTAL ANNUAL COST:  			$9,940

f.	Reason for Change in Burden

	Not applicable, as this is a new information collection.

g.	Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 4 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center in Washington, DC (EPA/DC).  The docket is located in the EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 3334, and is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

 	You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161 and OMB Control Number 2060-NEW in any correspondence.


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 12 3456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A B C D E F VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS FOR FT_ MPCT. XLS VARIABLE DESCRIPTION WORKSHEET COLUMN CBI FORMULA Subcategory MP& M subcategory PTRA A N Sum of Weighted PTRA Sum of weighted PTRA ( excluding outliers) PTRA B N = SUMIF( Data!$ F$ 2:$ F$ 770, $ A5, Data! H$ 2: H$ 770) Total Weights Sum of weights ( excluding outliers) PTRA C N = SUMIF( Data!$ F$ 2:$ F$ 770, $ A5, Data! I$ 2: I$ 770) Avg PTRA Average PTRA ( excluding outliers) PTRA D N = B5/ C5 Median PTRA Median PTRA PTRA E N = D19 Subcategory MP& M subcategory PTRA row 17 N # of Unweighted Facilities Number of unweighted facilities PTRA row 18 N Median PTRA Median PTRA PTRA row 19 N SID Site ID Data A Y = IF([ MPCT_ Final. xls] RawData! B7<>"",[ MPCT_ Final. xls] RawDat a! B7,"")

Weight Weight Data B Y = IF( ISNA( VLOOKUP($ A2, FacData, 2, FALSE)), 0, VLOOKUP($ A 2, FacData, 2, FALSE))

EBIT Earnings before interest and taxes Data C Y = VLOOKUP( A2,[ MPCT_ Final. xls] Base!$ A$ 6:$ L$ 949,12,0)

Assets Assets Data D Y = VLOOKUP( A2,[ MPCT_ Final. xls] Base!$ A$ 6:$ AC$ 949,29,0)

PTRA Pre tax return on assets Data E Y = IF( ISERR( C2/ D2)," n/ a", C2/ D2) Subcat MP& M subcategory Data F Y = VLOOKUP( A2, '[ Summary_ Final. xls] Data'!$ A$ 7:$ F$ 916, 4, 0)

Weighted PTRA Weighted PTRA Data G Y = E2* B2 Weighted PTRA without outliers Weighted PTRA ( without outliers over 250%) Data H Y = IF( E2< 2.5, G2, "")

Weights without outliers Weights ( does not include outlier facilities with PTRA > 250%) Data I Y = IF( E2< 2.5, B2, "")

February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 3 PTRA. xls  Var Desc Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 1 23 4 56789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A B C D E F G H I J Subcategory Sum of Weighted PTRA Total Weights Avg PTRA Median PTRA Shipbuilding Dry Dock 0.1 2.8 2.5% 2.5% General Metals 1,418.8 10,450.8 13.6% 11.4% MF Job Shop 262.2 1,541.5 17.0% 9.0% NonChromium Anodizer 12.2 122.0 10.0% 9.0% Oily Wastes 15,767.9 24,245.8 65.0% 9.6% Printed Wiring Boards 53.1 839.8 6.3% 12.6% Railroad Line Maintenance n/ a n/ a n/ a n/ a New Iron and Steel Forming and Finishing 9.1% All Subcategories 17,514.3 37,202.9 47.1% 10.8%

Subcategory All Sectors New Iron and Steel Forming and Finishing Shipbuilding Dry Dock General Metals MF Job Shop NonChromium Anodizer Oily Wastes Printed Wiring Boards Railroad Line Maintenance # of Unweighted Facilities 689 22 1 349 51 6 191 69 0 Median PTRA 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.13 # NUM! Median PTRA worksheet These values exclude outlier PTRA's above 250%.

February 14, 2003 2 of 3 PTRA. xls  PTRA Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule 1 23456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 A B C D E F G H I SID Weight EBIT Assets PTRA ( EBIT/ Total Assets) Subcat Weighted PTRA Weighted PTRA without outliers Weights without outliers 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53 55 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79 81 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 94 95 Note: All data except site identification not shown to protect confidential business information. Sample page provided to show structure of worksheet. February 14, 2003 3 of 3 PTRA. xls  Data