[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57422]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22822]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday,
September 17, 2013 at 4:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Post argument discussion
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Dated: September 16, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22822 Filed 9-16-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Notice of Receipt of a Clean Air Act Waiver Application to Increase the
Allowable Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent – Meeting Notice

Date	EPA Attendees	Name of Organization 	Summary of Discussion

10/05/2010

	Joel Ball

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Jim Snyder

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Antonio Fernandez

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Mary Manners

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Robert Anderson (by telephone)

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Representative from the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Illinois
Corn Growers Association (ICGA), and Ricardo met with EPA.  Attendees
included  Kristy Moore from RFA, Dave Loos from ICGA, and  Rod Beazley,
Rod Harris and Luke Cruff from Ricardo.	RFA, ICGA and Ricardo discussed
their support for the E15 waiver to be granted for introduction into
commerce for all motor vehicles.  Discussion focused on Ricardo’s
recently submitted report for vehicles MY1994-2000 (see Docket No. ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211-14007).


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34046-34047]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0524]

Safety Zone; Swim Event in Captain of the Port New York Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone within the Captain
of the Port New York Zone on the specified date and times provided
below. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels,
spectators and participants from hazards associated with a swim event.
During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety
zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: The regulation for the safety zone described in 33 CFR 165.160
will be enforced on the date and times listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert
U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in Table 2 of 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified date and time as
indicated in the table below.

                                  Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swim Across America Safety Zone 33 CFR    Location: Participants
 165.160 (3.1).                           will swim between Glenn Cove
                                          and Larchmont, New York and an
                                          area of Hempstead Harbor
                                          between Glen Cove and the
                                          vicinity of Umbrella Point.
                                          This Safety Zone includes all
                                          waters within a 100-yard
                                          radius of each participating
                                          swimmer.
                                          Date: July 28, 2018.
                                          Time: 5:30 a.m.-12:00
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the
safety zone unless given permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones
but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other
vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced
notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners
and marine information broadcasts.
    If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for
the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety
zone.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
J.P. Tama,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2018-15441 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19076-19077]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7742]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1024]

High Density Traffic Airports; Notice of Determination Regarding
Low Demand Periods at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA).

ACTION: Notice of agency determination.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces an FAA determination that 10 p.m. to
10:59 p.m. no longer is a low demand period at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport (DCA). As a result of this

determination, the FAA will allocate available slots in that period on
a temporary basis subject to recall, and the FAA may conduct a lottery
in the future to allocate available slots in that period.

DATES: Effective March 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
267-7971; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued the High Density Traffic Airports Rule (HDR), 14 CFR
part 93 subpart K, in 1968 to reduce delays at five congested airports:
John F. Kennedy International Airport, LaGuardia Airport, O'Hare
International Airport, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA),
and Newark Liberty International Airport.\1\ Currently, the HDR applies
only to DCA. The regulation limits the number of operations during
certain hours of the day and requires a slot, which the FAA allocates
for a specific 60-minute period, for each scheduled operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 FR 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1985, the FAA issued part 93 subpart S (the ``Buy/Sell
Rule'').\2\ As part of the Buy/Sell Rule, Sec.  93.226 permits the
administrative allocation of slots during low demand periods, which are
6 a.m. to 6:59 a.m. (the 0600 hour) and 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. (the 2200
and 2300 hours), on a first come, first served basis. Section 93.226(d)
permits the FAA to determine those periods are no longer low demand
periods and allocate any available slots by lottery under Sec.  93.225.
The FAA may make this determination when it becomes apparent that
demand for slots is increasing to the point where a first come, first
served allocation procedure is inappropriate. The FAA previously
determined the 0600 hour is not a low demand period.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 50 FR 52195 (Dec. 20, 1985).
    \3\ 76 FR 58393 (Sept. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Determination

    Currently, the FAA has allocated all but three commuter and all but
three air carrier slots in the 2200 hour.
    Because of the relatively small number of available slots in the
2200 hour, the FAA now determines that hour no longer is a low demand
period. Additional permanent allocation of slots in that time period
would undermine the new entrant and limited incumbent allocation
priority under Sec.  93.225. The FAA no longer will allocate slots
during that time period on a permanent first come, first served basis.
    The FAA further determines the present demand for available slots
does not justify conducting a lottery at this time. Accordingly, the
FAA will allocate slots in the 2200 hour on a temporary basis subject
to recall by the FAA under Sec.  93.226(e). However, if the FAA cannot
accommodate future requests for slots, especially requests by new
entrants or limited incumbents, through temporary allocations, the FAA
may recall any temporarily allocated slots and conduct a lottery at
that time.
    Slots currently allocated are unaffected by this determination, and
the HDR continues to apply to all allocated slots.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 27, 2012.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2012-7742 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 76170]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4013-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4013-DR), dated August 12, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 18, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 12, 2011.

    Thurston County, including the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska and Iowa,
for Individual Assistance.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-31279 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: September 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 172)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51204-51208]
[DOCID:fr06se07-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 49

[EPA-R01-OAR-2005-TR-0001; A-1-FRL-8463-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a Tribal Implementation Plan
submitted by the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut. The TIP
establishes an enforceable cap on nitrogen oxide emissions from
stationary sources owned by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority and
located within the external boundaries of the Mohegan Reservation. This
action is intended to help attain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2005-TR-0001 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2005-TR-0001'',
Dan Brown, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAP),
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Dan Brown,

Manager, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Air Unit, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAP), Boston, MA
02114-2023 Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2005-TR-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
, or e-mail, information that you consider to be

CBI or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding legal holidays.
    In addition to the publicly available docket materials available
for inspection electronically in the Federal Docket Management System
at http://www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy available at the

Regional Office, which are identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register, copies of the Tribe's submittal and EPA's technical
support document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the Mohegan Tribe, Mohegan
Environmental Protection Department, 49 Sandy Desert Road, Uncasville,
CT 06382, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ida E. McDonnell, Air Permits, Toxics
and Indoor Air Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, 11th floor, (CAP), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number
(617) 918-1653, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document.
The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in
this preamble.

I. Background to This Rulemaking
II. CAA Requirements and the Role of the Tribes
    1. How did the 1990 CAA Amendments include the tribes?
    2. What criteria must a tribe demonstrate to be treated in the
same manner as a state under the CAA?
    3. What is an implementation plan for criteria air pollutants
and what must it contain?
III. Analysis of the Mohegan TIP
    1. Are the Mohegans eligible to run their CAA air program?
    2. Does the Mohegan TIP meet all CAA requirements?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background to This Rulemaking

    On May 4, 2005, the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (the
Tribe) submitted a Tribal Implementation Plan (Mohegan TIP) for
approval by the EPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Mohegan TIP
consists of a tribal ordinance, entitled ``Area Wide NOX
Emissions Limitation Regulation,'' that establishes a limit on nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions from stationary sources owned by the
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority and located within the external
boundaries of the Mohegan Reservation. On August 22, 2007, the Tribe
submitted an amendment to the Mohegan TIP.

II. CAA Requirements and the Role of the Tribes

1. How did the 1990 CAA Amendments include the tribes?

    Under the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA may
approve eligible tribes to administer certain provisions of the CAA.
Pursuant to Section 301(d)(2) of the CAA, EPA promulgated the Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) on February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7254). The TAR
specifies the CAA provisions for which it is appropriate to treat
tribes in the same manner as states, the eligibility criteria the
tribes must meet if they choose to seek such treatment, and the
procedure by which EPA reviews a tribe's request for an eligibility
determination.
    As a general matter, EPA determined in the TAR that it is not
appropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as states for purposes
of specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for NAAQS-
related requirements. 40 CFR 49.4. Thus, tribes are generally not
subject to CAA provisions which specify a deadline by which something
must be accomplished. So, for example, provisions mandating the
submission of state implementation plans do not apply to the tribes.
Furthermore, under the TAR (40 CFR 49.7(c)), a tribe may choose to
implement reasonably severable portions of the various CAA programs, as
long as it can demonstrate that its proposed air program is not
integrally related to program elements that are not included in the
plan submittal and is consistent with applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements. So, for example, a tribe may choose to submit
a TIP that uses a limited set of methods to control just one or two air
pollutants. This modular approach is intended to give tribes the
flexibility to address their most pressing air resource issues and
acknowledges that tribes often have limited resources with which to
address their environmental concerns. Consistent with the exceptions
listed in 40 CFR 49.4, once submitted, a tribe's proposed air program
will be evaluated in accordance with applicable statutory and
regulatory criteria in a manner similar to the way EPA would review a
similar state submittal. 40 CFR 49.8(h).

EPA expects tribes to fully implement and enforce their approved
programs and, as with states, EPA retains its discretionary authority
to impose sanctions for failure to implement an air program.
    Where the provisions of the act or implementing regulations
governing the program for which the tribe seeks approval require
criminal enforcement authority, the tribe may enter into a memorandum
of agreement with the appropriate EPA Region to provide for criminal
enforcement by EPA. 40 CFR 49.7(a)(6), 49.8.

2. What criteria must a tribe demonstrate to be treated in the same
manner as a state under the CAA?

    Under Section 301(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7601, and the
TAR (at 40 CFR 49.6), EPA may treat a tribe in the same manner as a
state for purposes of administering certain CAA programs or grants if
the tribe demonstrates that (1) it is federally recognized; (2) it has
a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and
powers; (3) the functions to be exercised by the tribe pertain to the
management and protection of air resources within the tribe's
reservation or within non-reservation areas under the tribe's
jurisdiction; and (4) it can reasonably be expected to be capable of
carrying out the functions for which it seeks approval.

3. What is an implementation plan for criteria air pollutants and what
must it contain?

    Implementation plans are a set of programs and regulations
submitted by states and, if they so choose, by tribes, that outline a
definite plan by which the state or tribe intends to help attain or
maintain NAAQS. NAAQS have been established for the following six
pollutants: Ozone; carbon monoxide; particulate matter; sulfur dioxide;
lead; and nitrogen dioxide. The EPA calls these pollutants ``criteria
pollutants'' because the original standards were based on information
in air quality criteria documents developed for pollutants that
``endanger the public health or welfare''. Once approved by EPA,
implementation plans become enforceable as a matter of federal law.
    Implementation plans are governed by Section 110 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7410. Under Sections 110(o) and 301(d) of the CAA and the TAR
(40 CFR 49.9(h)), any TIP submitted to EPA shall be reviewed in
accordance with the provisions for review of state implementation plans
(SIPs) set forth in CAA Section 110. Thus, the TIP must include not
only the substantive rules by which the tribe proposes to help achieve
NAAQS, but also provide assurances that the tribe will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority to administer the plan, as required
by CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E), and requirements governing conflicts of
interest, as required by CAA Section 128.\1\ Under Section 128,
implementation plans must contain requirements that (1) any ``board or
body'' that approves permits or enforcement orders have at least a
majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive
any significant portion of their income from persons subject to the
permits or orders and (2) conflicts of interest are disclosed. EPA does
not intend to read Section 128 to limit a tribe's flexibility in
creating a regulatory infrastructure that ensures an adequate
separation between the regulator and the regulated entity (59 FR 43956,
43964 (Aug. 25, 1994)).
    EPA will evaluate the elements submitted in each TIP on a case-by-
case basis to ensure the selected program is reasonably severable under
the CAA, and that the TIP has control measures that adequately address
the specific types of pollution of concern on the reservation. Once EPA
approves the TIP, its provisions are enforceable by the tribe, by EPA,
and by citizens. As with SIPs, EPA maintains an ongoing oversight role
to ensure the approved TIP is adequately implemented and enforced and
to provide technical and policy assistance. An important aspect of
EPA's oversight role is that EPA retains legal authority to bring an
enforcement action against a source violating the approved TIP.

III. Analysis of the Mohegan TIP

1. Are the Mohegans eligible to run their CAA air program?

    On December 29, 2006, EPA determined that the Mohegan Tribe of
Indians of Connecticut has demonstrated that it is eligible to be
treated in the same manner as a state for the limited purpose of
administering the Mohegan TIP and other similar programs to regulate
minor sources of air pollution under Section 110 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
7410) within the Mohegan Reservation, as those boundaries existed on
May 4, 2005 and as described in the revision to the Tribe's eligibility
application submitted August 16, 2006. EPA's analysis of the Tribe's
eligibility and its final determination of the Tribe's jurisdictional
assertion under the TAR may be found in the electronic docket for this
action.

2. Does the Mohegan TIP meet all CAA requirements?

    As described below, we are satisfied that the Mohegan TIP
adequately addresses the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C).
Under CAA Section 110(k), EPA determined the Mohegan TIP was complete
on July 6, 2005, using the completeness criteria set forth in Appendix
V of 40 CFR Part 51. As part of this completeness determination, we
noted that the application included a description of how the Tribe
intends to implement the TIP and provided evidence that the Area Wide
NOX Emissions Limitation Regulation (NOX
Regulation) and other necessary tribal laws were properly adopted. In
accordance with CAA Section 110(a), the Tribe issued a public notice
soliciting comments on its proposed TIP on February 25, 2005, held a
public hearing on March 28, 2005 at the Mohegan Reservation in
Uncasville, CT, and closed the public comment period on March 30, 2005
with no comments received. On August 22, 2007, the Tribe submitted an
amendment to the NOX Regulation described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(E), which requires all implementation plans to contain
the requirements described in Section 128 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
7428. Tribal implementation plans must comply with Section 128, as
neither Section 110(a)(2)(E) nor Section 128 of the Act are listed
in the TAR as provisions that are inapplicable to tribes seeking TIP
approval under the Act. See 40 CFR 49.4. EPA explicitly contemplated
the applicability of Section 128 in the preamble to the proposed
TAR. See 59 FR 43956, 43964 (Aug. 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stationary sources owned by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority
have the potential to emit \2\ NOX in major source amounts,
but have actual emissions that are below the major source thresholds.
The primary objective for this rulemaking is to create a mechanism by
which the emission limit for stationary sources owned by the Mohegan
Tribal Gaming Authority located within the exterior boundaries of the
Mohegan Reservation is enforceable as a practical matter. The Mohegan
TIP is the equivalent of a permit that keeps the sources in ``synthetic
minor'' status and ensures that the source is legally prohibited from
operating as a major source. In other words, even though units owned by
the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority have the potential to emit
NOX in major source amounts, they will be considered minor
sources and will avoid triggering CAA major source requirements because
the units

collectively will be subject to an enforceable emissions limitation.
Actual NOX emissions from these units have never approached
the major source thresholds. When the Tribe first submitted the
NOX Regulation, the cap on NOX emissions in
effect under the regulation was 99 tons per year (TPY). The Tribe
subsequently amended the NOX Regulation to lower that cap to
49 TPY, because the Tribe has chosen to enforce a limit below the
threshold for major sources of NOX applicable in the Greater
Connecticut air quality planning area outside of and surrounding the
Tribe's reservation. In accordance with CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B), the
NOX ordinance also contains monitoring, recordkeeping,
reporting, and testing requirements as needed to assure compliance with
the synthetic minor limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit any air pollutant under its physical and operational
design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mohegan TIP will be administered primarily by the Mohegan
Environmental Protection Department and enforced via the Gaming
Disputes Court, a tribal court with exclusive jurisdiction over
disputes arising out of or in connection with any action of the Mohegan
Tribal Gaming Authority. Under the NOX Regulation, the
Administrator of the Mohegan Environmental Protection Department may
issue a citation requiring an individual to appear before the Gaming
Disputes Court for a judicial hearing on an alleged violation of the
NOX Regulation or, in emergencies, petition the Court for a
cease and desist order. After hearing, the Gaming Disputes Court may
issue final orders imposing injunctive relief and/or civil penalties of
up to $25,000 per violation per day. In addition, the Mohegan Tribe of
Indians of Connecticut and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement by which, for the purposes
of criminal enforcement, the Tribe will provide potential investigative
leads to EPA and/or other appropriate Federal agencies, as agreed to by
the parties, in an appropriate and timely manner.
    As noted above, CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires an implementation
plan to ``provide * * * necessary assurances that the [applicant] * * *
will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under [tribal] law
to carry out such implementation plan.'' The Tribal Application
contains such assurances and cites a provision of the MEPD Ordinance
requiring the Tribal Council to ``provide such funding to the
Department that will ensure that the Department can, at a minimum,
appropriately develop, implement, monitor, and enforce the Tribal
Implementation Plan and any other environmental programs approved by
the Tribal Council.''
    To demonstrate compliance with CAA Section 128, the Tribe
submitted, as part of the Mohegan TIP, the Mohegan Tribal Ethics
Ordinance. Under Section 4, Standard E of the Ethics Ordinance,
``public officials,'' or persons holding elected or appointed office,
are prohibited from having or subsequently acquiring any ``direct or
indirect financial or other economic interests'' that are in conflict
with interests of the Tribe. Under Standard F, if required to act on a
matter in which the public official has a personal economic interest
(e.g., the Tribe wishes to purchase a parcel of land in which the
public official has an interest), the public official must disclose
such interest and abstain from participating in the deliberation and
decision making process.\3\ According to the Tribe, the Ethics
Ordinance applies to the judges of the Gaming Disputes Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 5 of the Ethics Ordinance requires members of the
Tribal Council and the Council of Elders and appointed public
officials with fiscal responsibilities to file annual economic
disclosure statements. An example disclosure statement is on file
with EPA Region I. However, the Mohegan ``board or body'' at issue
here is covered by neither category and, thus, not required to file
such statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the structure of the NOX Regulation, the Ethics
Ordinance need only apply to the judges of the Gaming Disputes Court
and not to the MEPD Administrator. First, under the NOX
Regulation, the MEPD Administrator is authorized only to issue a
citation requiring an alleged violator to appear before the Court or to
petition the Court for a cease and desist order. Enforcement orders for
both civil penalties and injunctive relief are issued only by the
Court. In other words, the Court is the ``board or body'' that
ultimately ``approves * * * enforcement orders.'' Second, while the
MEPD Administrator must approve emissions factors to be used in
calculating NOX emissions, as well as any construction or
modification of NOX sources, both of which resemble the
grant of a permit, the NOX Regulation requires the
Administrator to give approval whenever specified standards are met.
Because this duty to approve is nondiscretionary, the MEPD
Administrator need not be, and is not, subject to the Ethics Ordinance.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Mohegan TIP that was submitted on
May 4, 2005, and amended on August 22, 2007 for limiting NOX
emissions from stationary sources owned by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming
Authority to 49 TPY. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves tribal law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by tribal law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under tribal law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
tribal law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    Since this rule simply approves pre-existing tribal law, it does
not result in any direct costs or preemption of tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nonetheless,
EPA has consulted extensively with the Mohegan Tribe concerning this
proposed TIP approval. This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a tribal rule
implementing a federal standard within the exterior boundaries of the
Tribe's reservation, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This rule also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks''(62 FR 19885, April 13, 1997), because
it approves a tribal rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing TIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve tribal
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
Tribe to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a TIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a TIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a TIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: August 27, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
 [FR Doc. E7-17535 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Fw: sale of R-22 units

Julius Banks

to:

jbaker

06/29/2009 02:09 PM

Mr. Baker,

We are currently drafting a final version of the rule that proposed a ban

on the import/export of a/c components, such as condensing units, that are

pre-charged with R-22.   As proposed, the ban would apply to appliances

and components manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, but not to

appliances or components manufactured before that date. The intent of the

proposal is to allow the use of components made prior to January 1, 2010

for the service of existing systems only.

While I have stated the intent of the proposal, there is no final rule as

of yet; therefore I cannot give you a definitive answer until the rule is

signed.  EPA understands the time sensitivity of this important action.

We anticipate a final version of the rule to be published by late fall.

EPA will post a copy of the rule on-line (www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html

) as soon as the final version can be made public.   Additional

information is available at

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/rulesoverview.html and

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/classtwo.html.

Feel free to call me if you have specific questions.

Regards,

Julius Banks

Team Lead, Refrigerant Recovery and Recycling Prog.

Stratospheric Protection Division

tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/608fact.html

****************************************************************

  From: Joe Baker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Sent: 06/26/2009 03:23 PM AST

  To: Cindy Newberg

  Subject: sale of R-22 units

Ms. Newberg, my company has been trying to get a clear answer on the

selling of R-22 air conditioning units. We are a wholesale distributor

that sells to HVAC contractors.

            If we have R-22 units in our warehouse, that we purchased and

received from the manufacturer before 1/1/2010, Can we still sell them

after 1/1/2010?

            We have been told several different scenarios and we are

trying to get this issue clarified.

Thanks……..

Joe Baker

Homans Associates Zone Manager

#805 Pawtucket, R.I., #806 Southboro, MA.

#811 Fall River, MA., #812 Meriden, CT.,

#816 Syracuse, NY.

Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70054-70055]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28829]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63288; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Making a
Technical Amendment to Its Rules To Insert the Specific Date for the
Additional Expiration Months Pilot Program

November 9, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 8, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the 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 proposes to make technical amendments to its rules to
insert the specific date for a pilot program. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make a technical amendment to its rules to
insert a specific date for a pilot program.
    The Exchange recently adopted rules to establish a pilot program
that would permit the Exchange to list up to an additional two
expiration months, for a total of six expiration months for each class
of options open for trading on the Exchange.\3\ This rule change
proposes to amend the text of Commentary .09 to Rule 6.4 to insert the
specific conclusion date of the pilot program, which is October 31,
2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63133 (October 19,
2010), 75 FR 65545 (October 25, 2010) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of SR-NYSEArca-2010-93).
    \4\ Existing rule text, which became effective and operative
immediately upon filing on October 18, 2010, indicates that the
Exchange will insert the date 12 months from the next full month
from approval. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\5\
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, 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, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule
change seeks to update rule text to insert specific dates for a pilot
program in a manner that is consistent with the pilot program as
originally proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder.\8\
The Exchange designates the proposed rule change as an interpretation
with respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an
existing rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-NYSEArca-2010-102 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-NYSEArca-2010-102. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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 the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-102 and should be submitted on or before
December 7, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28829 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 67766]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4567-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4567-DR), dated October 2, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on October 2, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Seamus K. Leary as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

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

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-23612 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 38 (Thursday, February 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10480]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03919]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0095; FRL-9923-53-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Source Categories: Gasoline
Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Source Categories:
Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities,
and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities (40 CFR part 63, Subparts BBBBBB and
CCCCCC) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2237.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0620) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through February 28, 2015. Public comments were previously requested
via the Federal Register (79 FR 30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. 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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 30,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA- HQ-
OECA-2014-0095, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NESHAP for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution
Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities applies to owners or operators of any existing or
new gasoline distribution facilities that are an area source of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions. In addition to the initial
notification and notification of compliance status required by the
General Provisions to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, respondents are
required to submit one-time reports of start of construction,
anticipated and actual startup dates, and physical or operational
changes to existing facilities. Reports of initial performance tests on
control devices at gasoline distribution storage tanks, loading racks,
and vapor balance systems are also required and are necessary to show
that the installed control devices are meeting the emission limitations
required by the NESHAP. Annual reports of storage tank inspections at
all affected facilities are required. In addition, respondents must
submit semiannual compliance and continuous monitoring system
performance reports, and semiannual reports of equipment leaks not
repaired within 15 days or loadings of cargo tanks for which vapor
tightness documentation is not available.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Gasoline distribution bulk
terminals, bulk plants, pipeline facilities, and gasoline dispensing
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart BBBBBB and CCCCCC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 19,120 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 175,308 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $17,273,140 (per year), includes $110,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 114,791 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to an adjustment to the labor
rates, mathematical corrections, and corrections to the number
respondents required for each burden item. Additionally, the previous
ICR did not account for the burden associated with equipment leak
inspections. In this ICR, we have conducted a thorough review of the
assumptions and updated all burden estimates, as appropriate.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-03919 Filed 2-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30481-30485]
[FR Doc No: E9-15144]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0353; FRL-8923-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California
Air Resources Board Consumer Products Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California Air
Resources Board's Consumer Products portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products. We are approving State
rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0353, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What regulations did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these regulations?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulation revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating these regulations?
    B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the regulations.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the regulations addressed by this proposal with the
dates that they were adopted by the State and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                         Table 1--Submitted Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
                 Regulation                            Regulation Title               amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Code of Regulations Title 17,     Article 1--Antiperspirants and           05/06/2005      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--      Deodorants.
 Consumer Products.
California Code of Regulations Title 17,     Article 2--Consumer Products.......      09/26/2007      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
California Code of Regulations Title 17,     Article 3--Aerosol Coating Products      09/26/2007      03/27/2008
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
California Air Resources Board--Test Method  Method 310--Determination of             05/06/2005      03/27/2008
 310.                                         Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
                                              in Consumer Products and Reactive
                                              Organic Compounds in Aerosol
                                              Coating Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These submittals became complete by operation of law on September
27, 2008.

B. Are there other versions of these regulations?

    We approved a version of CARB's Antiperspirant and Deodorant
Regulation into the SIP on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379). CARB adopted
and submitted revisions to the SIP-approved version on the following
dates. While we are acting on only the most recently submitted version,
we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Antiperspirant and deodorant
          hearing date                  Amended                             Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 28, 1995..............  January 26, 1996...  August 27, 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 1996...............  September 25, 1997.  December 18, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 1996...............  October 3, 1997....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 19, 1998...............  November 19, 1999..  Not submitted--methyl acetate
                                                       exempted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 26, 2000................  October 26, 2000...  April 3, 2002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We approved a version of CARB's Consumer Products Regulation into
the SIP on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379). CARB adopted and submitted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on the following dates. While we
are acting on only the most recently submitted version, we have
reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Consumer products hearing date         Amended                             Submitted to EPA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 28, 1995..............  January 16, 1996...  August 27, 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 1996...............  September 25, 1997.  December 18, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 1996...............  October 3, 1997....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 27, 1997..................  March 27, 1997.....
------------------------------------------------------
July 24, 1997...................  May 20, 1998.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 19, 1998...............  November 19, 1999..  Not submitted--methyl acetate exempted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 28, 1999................  August 14, 2000....  April 3, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2000....................  February 12, 2001..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24, 2004...................  May 6, 2005........  March 27, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We approved the following version of CARB's Aerosol Coating
Products Regulation into the SIP on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53930).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aerosol coating products
          hearing date                 Amended        Submitted to  EPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2001....................  June 22, 2000.....  March 13, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has not approved any prior version of CARB Test Method 310 into
the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulation revisions?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.
    The California Health and Safety Code (Section 41712(b)) requires
CARB to ``adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction
in volatile organic compounds emitted by consumer products, if the
state board determines that adequate data exists to establish both of
the following:
    (1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal
ambient air quality standards.
    (2) The regulations are commercially and technologically feasible
and necessary.''
    CARB's consumer products regulations are found under the California
Code of Regulations Title 17 Chapter 1 Subchapter 8.5 and include:

Article 1--Antiperspirants and Deodorants
Article 2--Consumer Products
Article 3--Aerosol Coating Products
Article 4--Alternative Control Plan
Article 5--Hairspray Credit Program

    The following are brief descriptions of CARB's consumer product
regulations and the amendments adopted by CARB, which we propose to
approve into the SIP.
1. Antiperspirants and Deodorants
    CARB's Antiperspirants and Deodorants (APDO) regulation limits the
percent of high volatility organic compounds (HVOC) and medium
volatility organic compounds (MVOC) in products. The original SIP-
approved regulation contained two tiers of HVOC/MVOC limits, which took
effect in 1992 and 1995. Amendments adopted by CARB include updating
the definition of VOC to be more consistent with EPA's definition in 40
CFR 50.100(s), extending the 18-month sell-through period to 3 years to
incorporate changes in State law, repealing a zero percent limit for
HVOC for aerosol antiperspirants, and clarifying the definition of
``deodorant'' to distinguish products covered under the APDO regulation
from products covered under CARB's general consumer products
regulation.
    CARB's SIP-approved regulation originally contained an aggressive
limit of zero percent HVOC for aerosol antiperspirants. CARB later
determined that this limit was not technically feasible, even with a
compliance extension, and repealed it in an October 26, 2000 hearing.
CARB's April 3, 2002 submittal letter to EPA estimated that this would
result in a shortfall in VOC emissions reductions of approximately 1.3
tons per day (tpd) statewide in 2010. CARB indicated, however, that
their Mid-term Measure II Consumer Products regulation would achieve
approximately 21 tpd of VOC emissions reductions, which more than
offset the shortfall. EPA is proposing to act on the APDO and Consumer
Products submittals together.
    CARB's APDO regulation is more stringent than EPA's national
Consumer Products rule (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) in the following
ways:
    (a) Contains more stringent two tier HVOC/MVOC limits.
    (b) Limits sell-through period to 3 years (EPA does not have a
limit for the sell-through period).
    (c) Requires compliance by laboratory testing or calculation.
    (d) Prohibits use of toxic air contaminants.
    (e) Covers retailers.
2. Consumer Products
    CARB's Consumer Products regulation limits the VOC content in
products such as air fresheners, automotive products, bathroom
cleaners, hair care products, and insecticides. CARB's 2006 Initial
Statement of Reasons (ISOR) indicates consumer products are a
significant source of VOC emissions in California and accounted for
approximately 260 tpd of VOC emissions in 2005. CARB's ISOR further
indicates that as a result of their consumer products regulations over
the last 15 years, statewide VOC emissions from consumer products were
reduced by over 170 tpd (40 percent reduction) in 2010. Appendix A of
the ISOR further points out that ``emissions from Consumer Products, in
2020, will be the largest source of VOC emissions in the South Coast
Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin.''
    Revisions to the SIP-approved regulation adopted by CARB include
repealing the aerosol adhesives VOC limit, postponing the second-tier
VOC limit for hairsprays and approximately doubling the number of
consumer product categories for regulation.
    CARB originally adopted the VOC limit for aerosol adhesives in 1989
with two tiers. The first tier established a VOC limit of 75 percent,
effective January 1, 1995, and the second tier established a VOC limit
of 25 percent effective January 1, 1997. CARB indicates that the
aerosol adhesives category is small, approximately 0.4 tpd and that
most manufacturers were ``having significant difficulty meeting the 25
percent VOC standard.'' Technical problems encountered included freeze
thaw stability and solvents drying too slowly, too fast, or dissolving
into the substrate. In May 2000, CARB repealed the 25 percent

VOC limit and adopted three new aerosol adhesive categories. EPA's VOC
content limit for household aerosol adhesives remains at 75 percent. 40
CFR part 59, subpart C, Table 1.
    CARB also indicated it had to postpone the second-tier VOC
hairspray limit of 55 percent for 17 months from January 1998 until
June 1999. Although CARB concluded that the 55 percent limit was
technically feasible, additional time was required by manufacturers to
complete product development and testing. CARB explained in its staff
report that the delayed implementation would not compromise its SIP
commitment because air pollution control districts had not claimed the
reductions until the beginning of the 1999 summer ozone season.
    Other amendments adopted by CARB include clarifying definitions,
requiring notifications for products sold towards the end of a sell-
through period, prohibiting solid air fresheners or toilet/urinal care
products from containing para-dichlorobenzene (a toxic air contaminant/
hazardous air pollutant) and clarifying that for products manufactured
after January 1, 2007, the ``most restrictive limit'' applies to any
representation made anywhere on the label, packaging, and all affixed
labels. CARB states that it established the sell-through period and
most restrictive limits because of a finding that older non-compliant
products remained on shelves long after the three year sell-through
period and CARB enforcement investigations finding representations made
on the principal display panel that were inconsistent with
representations on the rest of the label or packaging. CARB noted that
``labels have appeared to have been changed to avoid reformulation to
meet VOC limits.'' CARB ISOR May 7, 2004, page V-52. CARB's amendments
also clarify that codes indicating date of manufacture are public
information and cannot be claimed as confidential.
    CARB's 1992 SIP-approved regulation covered approximately 50
categories/subcategories of consumer products. Since that time, CARB
has added additional consumer product categories for regulation and has
further reduced the VOC limits in existing categories. The amended rule
covers 112 categories/subcategories of consumer products.
    CARB's Consumer Products regulation is more stringent than EPA's
national Consumer Products rule (40 CFR part 59, subpart C) in the
following ways:
    (a) Contains more stringent two-tier VOC limits.
    (b) Covers more categories of consumer products.
    (c) Limits the sell-through period to 3 years.
    (d) Requires compliance by laboratory testing or calculation.
    (e) Prohibits use of toxic air contaminants and ozone depleting
substances.
    (f) Covers retailers.
3. Aerosol Coating Products
    EPA approved CARB's Aerosol Coating Products regulation (adopted
May 1, 2001) into the SIP on September 13, 2005. CARB adopted minor
updates to test methods in the regulation at a public hearing in 2004
and clarifications to overlapping requirements between the Aerosol
Coating Products and Consumer Products regulations at a hearing on
November 17, 2006. These amendments covered Rubber and Vinyl
Protectants, Fabric Protectants, Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate
Coatings, cosmetic products, and other products used on the human body.
The purpose of the 2006 amendments was to clarify that each of these
products would be regulated under only one of these two regulations.
The amendment also clarified that cosmetics and other products used on
the human body are regulated only under the Consumer Products
regulation and exempted from CARB's Aerosol Coatings regulation.
4. Method 310
    CARB Method 310 incorporates by reference a number of other test
methods including those from US EPA, the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), and the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH). Method 310 also: contains procedures to
separate the propellant from the non-propellant portions of aerosol
products; allows analysis of the propellant and non-propellant portions
for total VOC, exempt VOC or prohibited compounds such as toxic air
contaminants; determines the low vapor pressure VOC status of compounds
and mixtures; and identifies the reactive organic compounds in aerosol
coating products.
    The 2005 amendments to Method 310 include updating references to
many of the ASTM and EPA test methods and adding an equation to
calculate the VOC content of low vapor pressure compounds and/or
mixtures.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information on
CARB's consumer products regulations.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
section 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). California's consumer products
regulations cover VOC area sources and not stationary sources. While
there are no applicable CTGs for these source categories, in 1998 EPA
promulgated national rules to regulate VOC emissions from consumer
products (63 FR 48831, September 11, 1998) and aerosol coating products
(73 FR 15621, March 24, 2008). EPA's national rules largely parallel
CARB's earlier SIP-approved rules. The amendments we are proposing to
approve today are more stringent than EPA's standards.
    Rules, guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57
FR 13498; April 16, 1992).
    4. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    5. 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart C, National Volatile Organic Compound
Emission Standards for Consumer Products; Subpart E, National VOC
Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings.

B. Do the regulations meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe CARB's Consumer Products regulations are consistent with
the relevant rules and policy and guidance documents regarding
enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. CARB's Antiperspirants and
Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products regulations
contain more stringent limits and cover more than twice the number of
categories covered by EPA's national Consumer Products rule. CARB
found,

however, that some technology-forcing limits, such as the aerosol
adhesives limit originally adopted in 1989, were not achievable. In
those cases, CARB identified limits that were achievable and offset any
shortfall in emission reductions through greater reductions in other
consumer product categories. The TSDs have more information on our
evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Regulations

    The TSD for CARB Method 310 suggests an amendment to clarify an
equation's legend. EPA recommends that CARB adopt this clarifying
amendment the next time it modifies Method 310.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted regulations fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them consistent with
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We are also proposing to approve CARB
Method 310 to support compliance with CARB's APDO, Consumer Products,
and Aerosol Coating Products regulations. We will accept comments from
the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive
convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to
publish a final approval action that will incorporate these regulations
into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-15144 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 78173-78174]
[DOCID:fr28de06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-88-006]

Entergy Services, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 20, 2006.
    Take notice that on December 18, 2006, Entergy Services, Inc.
(ESI), as agent on behalf of the Entergy Operating Companies tendered
for filing in accordance with the Commission's November 17, 2006 Order,
proposed changes to the Entergy System Agreement that were filed on
April 10, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 17, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-22231 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P