[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 202 (Monday, October 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66257-66264]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21438]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189; FRL-10014-98-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Determinations for Case-by-Case Sources Under the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
multiple state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These revisions were submitted by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to
establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for individual major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's conditionally approved RACT regulations. In this action,
EPA is only approving source-specific (also referred to as ``case-by-
case'') RACT determinations for four major sources. These RACT
evaluations were submitted to meet RACT requirements for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA
is approving these revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing
regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Emily Bertram, Permits Branch
(3AD10), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bertram can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 5, 2020, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM). 85 FR 26647. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of case-by-case
RACT determinations for four sources in Pennsylvania for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The case-by-case RACT determinations for these
four sources were included in SIP revisions submitted by PADEP on
November 21, 2017, April 26, 2018, June 26, 2018, and October 29, 2018.
    Under certain circumstances, states are required to submit SIP
revisions to address RACT requirements for major sources of
NOX and VOC or any source category for which EPA has
promulgated control technique guidelines (CTG) for each ozone NAAQS.
Which NOX and VOC sources in Pennsylvania are considered
``major,'' and therefore to be addressed for RACT revisions, is
dependent on the location of each source within the Commonwealth.
Sources located in nonattainment areas would be subject to the ``major
source'' definitions established under the CAA based on their
classification. In the case of Pennsylvania, sources located in any
areas outside of moderate or above nonattainment areas, as part of the
Ozone Transport Region (OTR), are subject to source thresholds of 50
tons per year (tpy). CAA section 184(b).
    On May 16, 2016, PADEP submitted a SIP revision addressing RACT
under both the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Pennsylvania.
PADEP's May 16, 2016 SIP revision intended to address certain
outstanding non-CTG VOC RACT, VOC CTG RACT, and major NOX
RACT requirements for both standards. The SIP revision requested
approval of Pennsylvania's 25 Pa. Code 129.96-100, Additional RACT
Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and VOCs (the
``presumptive'' RACT II rule). Prior to the adoption of the RACT II
rule, Pennsylvania relied on the NOX and VOC control
measures in 25 Pa. Code 129.92-95, Stationary Sources of NOX
and VOCs, (the RACT I rule) to meet RACT for non-CTG major VOC sources
and major NOX sources. The requirements of the RACT I rule
remain approved into Pennsylvania's SIP and continue to be
implemented.\1\ On September 26, 2017, PADEP submitted a supplemental
SIP revision, dated September 22, 2017, which committed to address
various deficiencies identified by EPA in their May 16, 2016
``presumptive'' RACT II rule SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RACT I Rule was approved by EPA into the Pennsylvania
SIP on March 23, 1998. 63 FR 13789. Through the current rule,
certain source-specific RACT I requirements will be superseded by
more stringent RACT II requirements. See Section II of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 9, 2019, EPA conditionally approved the RACT II rule based
on the commitments PADEP made in its September 22, 2017 supplemental
SIP revision. See 84 FR 20274. In EPA's final conditional approval, EPA
noted that PADEP would be required to submit, for EPA's approval, SIP
revisions to address any facility-wide or system-wide averaging plan
approved under 25 Pa. Code 129.98 and any case-by-case RACT
determinations under 25 Pa. Code 129.99. PADEP committed to submitting
these additional SIP revisions within 12 months of EPA's final
conditional approval, specifically May 9, 2020. The SIP revisions
addressed in this rule are part of PADEP's efforts to meet the
conditions of its supplemental SIP revision and EPA's conditional
approval of the RACT II Rule.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Summary of SIP Revision

    To satisfy a requirement from EPA's May 9, 2019 conditional
approval, PADEP submitted to EPA SIP revisions addressing case-by-case
RACT requirements for major sources in Pennsylvania subject to 25 Pa.
Code

129.99. In the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions, PADEP included a case-
by-case RACT determination for the existing emissions units at each of
these major sources of NOX and/or VOC that required a
source-specific RACT determination. In PADEP's RACT determinations, an
evaluation was completed to determine if previously SIP-approved, case-
by-case RACT emission limits or operational controls (herein referred
to as RACT I and contained in RACT I permits) were more stringent than
the new RACT II presumptive or case-by-case requirements. If more
stringent, the RACT I requirements will continue to apply to the
applicable source. If the new case-by-case RACT II requirements are
more stringent than the RACT I requirements, then the RACT II
requirements will supersede the prior RACT I requirements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While the prior SIP-approved RACT I permit will remain part
of the SIP, this RACT II rule will incorporate by reference the RACT
II requirements through the RACT II permit and clarify the ongoing
applicability of specific conditions in the RACT I permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, EPA is taking action on SIP revisions pertaining to case-by-
case RACT requirements for four major sources of NOX and/or
VOC in Pennsylvania, as summarized in Table 1.

 Table 1--Four Major NOX and/or VOC Sources in Pennsylvania Subject to Case-by-Case RACT II Determinations Under
                                      the 1997 and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Major source
        Major source (county)          1-Hour ozone RACT source?   pollutant (NOX and/or      RACT II permit
                                               (RACT I)                    VOC)              (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transco--Salladasburg Station 520     Yes.......................  NOX and VOC...........  41-00001 (06/06/17).
 (Lycoming).
Novipax (Berks).....................  Yes.......................  VOC...................  06-05036 (12/19/2017).
Sunoco Partners Marketing &           Yes.......................  NOX and VOC...........  23-00119 (01/20/17).
 Terminals (Delaware).
Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.      Yes.......................  VOC...................  46-00037 (03/10/17).
 (Montgomery).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The case-by-case RACT determinations submitted by PADEP consist of
an evaluation of all reasonably available controls at the time of
evaluation for each affected emissions unit, resulting in a PADEP
determination of what specific emission limit or control measures, if
any, satisfy RACT for that particular unit. The adoption of new,
additional, or revised emission limits or control measures to existing
SIP-approved RACT I requirements were specified as requirements in new
or revised Federally enforceable permits (hereafter RACT II permits)
issued by PADEP to the source. The RACT II permits, which revise or
adopt additional source-specific limits and/or controls, have been
submitted as part of the Pennsylvania RACT SIP revisions for EPA's
approval in the Pennsylvania SIP under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(1). The RACT
II permits submitted by PADEP are listed in the last column of Table 1
of this preamble, along with the permit effective date, and are part of
the docket for this rule, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0189.\3\ EPA is
incorporating by reference in the Pennsylvania SIP, via the RACT II
permits, source-specific RACT emission limits and control measures
under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for certain major sources of
NOX and VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The RACT II permits are redacted versions of a facility's
Federally enforceable permits and reflect the specific RACT
requirements being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    PADEP's SIP revisions incorporate its determinations of source-
specific RACT II controls for individual emission units at major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, where those units
are not covered by or cannot meet Pennsylvania's presumptive RACT
regulation. After thorough review and evaluation of the information
provided by PADEP in its five SIP revision submittals for four major
sources of NOX and/or VOC in Pennsylvania, EPA proposed to
find that PADEP's case-by-case RACT determinations and conclusions
establish limits and/or controls on individual sources that are
reasonable and appropriately considered technically and economically
feasible controls.
    PADEP, in its RACT II determinations, considered the prior source-
specific RACT I requirements and, where more stringent, retained those
RACT I requirements as part of its new RACT determinations. In the
NPRM, EPA proposed to find that all the proposed revisions to
previously SIP approved RACT I requirements would result in equivalent
or additional reductions of NOX and/or VOC emissions. The
proposed revisions should not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment or reasonable further progress with the NAAQS or
interfere with other applicable CAA requirements in section 110(l) of
the CAA.
    Other specific requirements of Pennsylvania's 1997 and 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS case-by-case RACT determinations and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action were explained in the NPRM and its associated
technical support document (TSD) and will not be restated here.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received comments from seven commenters on the May 5, 2020
NPRM. 85 FR 26647. A summary of the comments and EPA's response are
discussed in this section of the preamble. A copy of the comments can
be found in the docket for this rule.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that water/steam injection is a
control option for Transco Station 520's simple cycle turbines that was
inappropriately determined to be technically infeasible and indicates
that this control option is found on EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
(RBLC) as technically feasible in at least 10 natural gas fired simple
cycle turbines over the last 20 years. The commenter further states
that EPA had made a similar comment for the public record on the
technical feasibility of water/steam injection and had arbitrarily
reversed its position in the NPRM. The commenter claims that the
reasons given for technical infeasibility such as water/steam supply,
storage tanks, the source of water, and water treatment and
pretreatment are economic, and not technical, feasibility issues. For
these reasons, the commenter states that EPA should disapprove PADEP's
RACT

determination for Transco Station 520 and reevaluate the economic
feasibility of water/steam injection.
    Response 1: The commenter is correct in stating that EPA made prior
comments suggesting that water/steam injection was a technically
feasible control option for natural gas fired simple cycle turbines in
gas transmission service that should be evaluated for economic
feasibility. However, EPA disagrees that it has arbitrarily changed its
position in proposing to approve the case-by-case RACT requirements for
the two Transco Station 520 simple cycle turbines. Both the facility
and PADEP responded to EPA's comment explaining why the water/steam
injection control option was not technically feasible at this specific
site.
    PADEP conducted its case-by-case RACT analysis of potential
controls for Transco's natural gas fired simple cycle turbines pursuant
to the requirements of Pennsylvania's RACT regulations. The case-by-
case RACT II analysis requirements are set forth in 25 PA Code
129.99(c), which then references the RACT proposal requirements
identified in 25 Pa Code 129.92. As identified in Section 129.92(b)(1),
``[a]vailable control options are air pollution control technologies
with a reasonable potential for application at the source.'' Section
129.29(b)(2) further identifies that ``[a] determination of technical
infeasibility shall identify technical difficulties which would
preclude the successful use of the control option on the source.''
    The water/steam injection control option requires a large volume of
purified water. The Transco facility is located in a remote location
without a viable on-site source of clean water. In order to have the
needed purified water on-site for water/steam injection, Transco would
need to drill an on-site well or transport water to an on-site water
purification facility. A water study would be needed to determine
whether and how an on-site well could be drilled. Transporting water to
the site would require the installation of a water purification
facility and large on-site storage tanks. The need to transport water
to the site for the use of water/steam injection also introduces
unreliability and the risk of insufficient water due to the
unpredictable nature of weather and transportation. The uncertainties
created by the need to transport water to the site increases the risk
of system failure because the Transco turbines are peaking units. Given
the nature of peak demand, these turbines are required to operate
immediately when necessary with little advanced notice.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See email dated May 18, 2017 from Williams to PADEP and
PADEP memorandum dated May 22, 2017, which are both part of the
record for this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the RACT analysis determined that water/steam
injection was technically infeasible for the Transco turbines. Lacking
an on-site water source or a reliable off-site source of on-demand
water, it was reasonable for PADEP to conclude that water/steam
injection was not an available control option with a ``reasonable
potential application at the source.'' While the need to install a
water purification system and large on-site storage tanks may be
factors that can be evaluated through an economic feasibility analysis,
the lack of an on-site water source and the risks and uncertainties of
an insufficient water supply due to the potential need for the on-
demand trucking of water are issues far more fundamental to determining
initially whether using water/steam injection is truly an available
control technology for these sources at this site. These circumstances
present ``technical difficulties which would preclude the successful
use of the control option on the affected source.'' After reviewing the
responses from the company and PADEP, EPA concluded that PADEP's RACT
determination that water/steam injection is not technically feasible
for the Transco Station 520 peaking turbines was a reasonable
conclusion based on Pennsylvania's RACT requirements.
    Comment 2: The commenter complains that the Transco Station 520
redacted permit consists of non-uniform pages, where one added page is
in color and the remaining pages are in black and white. The commenter
claims that EPA illegally altered the state's submittal to correct a
mistake made by the state. The commenter refers to a prior proposed
rulemaking, EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290, where the redacted permit for
Transco station 520, included in the docket for that proposed
rulemaking, did not include the 79.3 lbs/hr and 95.6 tpy RACT emission
limits. However, the commenter notes that the redacted permit in the
current docket does contain such RACT limits. The commenter states that
EPA must remit the SIP back to Pennsylvania to incorporate enforceable
RACT limitations.
    Response 2: The commenter's concern relates to the RACT emission
limits for Source ID 106 in the Transco Station 520 Permit No. 41-
00001, Section D, I., Condition #004. The commenter notes that, in a
proposed rule from 2017, EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0290 which was never
finalized, this permit condition was not included in the redacted
permit to be incorporated into the SIP.\5\ This was an inadvertent
error because the emission limits contained in the permit condition
were always intended to be part of Pennsylvania's RACT determination
for this source. See, for example, the PADEP technical review memo,
dated February 22, 2017, the EPA TSD, and the full Transco Station 520
Permit No. 41-00001, all of which were in the docket for the 2017
proposed action. EPA, subsequently notified PADEP that the SIP
submittal for Transco Station 520 contained an incorrectly redacted
permit. On April 6, 2020, PADEP supplemented their SIP submittal with
the correctly redacted permit.\6\ The docket for the proposal for the
current rulemaking included a correctly redacted permit, which included
the 79.3 lbs/hr and 95.6 tpy RACT emission limits.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA never took any final action under the EPA-R03-OAR-2017-
0290 proposed rulemaking because of CBI issues with the docket. See
discussion in Supplementary Information section of this preamble.
    \6\ PADEP supplemented its SIP revision submittal with a
corrected version of the redacted permits for Transco via email on
April 6, 2020. The revised redacted permit was appropriately added
to the supporting materials for the current proposed rulemaking. The
email from PADEP to EPA Region 3, dated April 6, 2020, is now being
added to the final docket along with the Final Rule Notice.
    \7\ EPA notes that PADEP, in its RACT SIP revisions for Transco
Station 520, Novipax, SPTM, and Global Advanced Metals, included
some form of annual limits in the RACT II permits for those
facilities. EPA wishes to clarify that it is not approving any such
annual limits as RACT limits. Rather, because PADEP analyzed what
should be RACT under operating conditions that included annual
limits from the existing facility permit, and PADEP included those
requirements in its SIP submittal to us, EPA is incorporating those
annual limits into the SIP not as RACT control limits but for the
purpose of SIP strengthening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The commenter agrees with EPA's proposed approval of
PADEP's determination to avoid the use of the blowing agent 152a when
considering RACT alternatives to the use of pentane. The commenter
explains that coal is not the only substance that is bad for the
environment and claims that blowing agent 152a is an extremely
dangerous compound that is harmful to the environment because it is a
potent greenhouse gas, a carcinogen and produces carbon dioxide.
    Response 3: While the commenter does not identify a specific
facility, we believe the commenter's comment applies to the Novipax
facility, where the blowing agent 152a was discussed in the RACT
analysis. EPA appreciates the support of the commenter for the Novipax
RACT determination.

    Comment 4: The commenter states that EPA should require more
controls for Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals (SPMT), including
controls that exceed Pennsylvania's cost thresholds of $2,800/ton or
other states' $5,000/ton cost thresholds. The commenter claims that
facilities such as SPMT, which causes millions of dollars in
environmental damage and makes millions of dollars, can afford to do
more and should be required to do more. The commenter explains that the
area in which SPMT is located is historically poor, damaged by
industrial pollution, and is a neighborhood of black and brown people.
The commenter claims that EPA has a duty to consider environmental
justice and should disapprove the RACT determination for SPMT and
require PADEP to use a higher cost threshold and force RACT level
controls to be installed.
    Response 4: There are seven emission units that required case-by-
case RACT determinations at the SPMT facility. The RACT determinations
are governed by the requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99, which requires
a technical and economic feasibility analysis of available control
options. Three of these emission units are the auxiliary boilers. The
SPMT auxiliary boilers are dual-fueled, burning both natural gas and
refinery gas. They are currently controlled with low NOX
burners and flue gas recirculation. PADEP's case-by-case RACT II
determination require these boilers to achieve a 0.05 lb
NOX/MMBtu emission limit, which will be incorporated into
the SIP through the current rule. This new limit tightens the prior
RACT I limit of 0.25 lb NOX/MMBtu emission limit. Although
there are no presumptive RACT requirements that apply to SPMT's dual-
fired boilers, the RACT II limit of 0.05 lb NOX/MMBtu is at
least twice as stringent as the presumptive RACT requirements at 25 Pa.
Code 129.97(g)(1) for combustion units equal to or greater than 50
MMBtu heat input. Because the SPMT boilers are already controlled and
achieve relatively low NOX emissions, additional controls
were found to be economically infeasible. The cost effectiveness
evaluation of the technically feasible control options for these
boilers determined a range of costs from $12,126 to $52,331/ton of
NOX reduced, a cost level well above the higher $5,000 cost
threshold identified by the commenter.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, L.P., RACT II
Proposal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, dated November 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth emission unit subject to case-by-case RACT is the marine
vessel loading operation that is currently subject to the requirements
of 25 Pa. Code Sec.  129.81 and 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y, the National
Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations, which
contains additional requirements for vapor collection and leak
detection. All marine vessel loading at the facility is currently
controlled by a marine vapor recovery (MVR) system which captures gases
and directs them to the fuel gas system to be combusted as a fuel in
the auxiliary boilers. The RACT analysis of the marine vessel loading
operations concluded that there is no feasible control with a greater
control efficiency than the current MVR control technology. Because
there were no technically feasible controls better than the current
controls, a cost effectiveness analysis was not required.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fifth emission unit subject to case-by-case RACT is a single
cooling tower, which has a potential to emit 4.6 tpy VOC. There were no
technically or economically feasible control options for this source in
addition to what is already required under prior RACT SIP approvals,
which are equipment inspection and monitoring.\10\ The sixth and
seventh emission units subject to case-by-case RACT are fugitive leaks
from valves and fugitive leaks across the facility. Again, the RACT
analysis identified that there were no technically feasible controls
for these sources. For both of these sources, PADEP is requiring as
RACT compliance with 40 CFR part 60 subpart VV, Standards of
Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic
Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (or VVa as appropriate), which
minimizes leaks from valves, flanges, and tanks through the use of
specified equipment, work practices and inspections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As identified in this preamble, PADEP followed the RACT analysis
requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.99 and for only three sources was it
able to identify additional technically feasible control options. For
those sources, the three auxiliary boilers, the cost of added emission
reduction well exceeded even the higher cost effectiveness threshold
identified by the commenter. In its approval capacity, EPA shall
approve a state's proposed RACT proposal if it meets the statutory and
regulatory requirements of the program. CAA Section 110(k)(3). In this
case, EPA determined that PADEP's proposed RACT SIP was reasonable and
met the statutory and regulatory requirements.
    The commenter also urges EPA to consider environmental justice as
part of the RACT determination for this facility. The Clean Air Act and
the requirements to implement RACT are designed to protect public
health and the environment. However, the only factors EPA is legally
required to consider for determining RACT are those in the statue and
regulations, and environmental justice is not a statutory or regulatory
factor in the RACT analysis. As described in this preamble and in our
proposal document we believe it is appropriate to fully approve PADEP's
SIP submittal with respect to RACT for SPMT.
    Comment 5: One commenter asserts that ``other neighboring states
such as New York and New Jersey both have cost effectiveness thresholds
set at or above $5,000 per ton, but here EPA arbitrarily allows a lower
dollar per ton threshold!'' The commenter goes on to question EPA's
approval of a lower cost threshold in Pennsylvania. Further, the
commenter states that ``EPA must retract their proposed approval and
set a uniform dollar per ton threshold based on, and consistent with,
past EPA actions'' and ``that the cost per ton threshold should at
least be consistent in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).'' Lastly, the
commenter claims that ``EPA is arbitrary and capricious when approving
two different states RACT SIPs with inconsistent cost thresholds'' and
that ``EPA needs to set the bar, not let the states waffle in the wind
and never install controls.''
    Response 5: EPA is aware that Pennsylvania considered cost-
effectiveness levels ($/ton removed) that are lower than other states,
such as New Jersey and New York as the commenter notes, when developing
the RACT II rule. However, EPA has not set a single cost, emission
reduction, or cost-effectiveness figure to fully define cost-
effectiveness in meeting the NOX or VOC RACT requirement.
Therefore, states have the discretion to determine what costs are
considered reasonable when establishing RACT for their sources. Each
state must make and defend its own determination on how to weigh these
values in establishing RACT.
    As PADEP explained in its RACT II rulemaking, it did not establish
a bright-line cost effectiveness threshold in determining what is
economically reasonably for purposes of defining RACT.\12\ Instead, it
developed as guidance a cost-effectiveness threshold

of $2,800 per ton of NOX controlled and $5,500 per ton of
VOC controlled for RACT. Pennsylvania also determined that even
evaluating control technology options with an additional 25% margin, an
upper bound cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,500 per ton
NOX controlled and $7,000 per ton VOC controlled, would not
affect the add-on control technology decisions required by RACT. Id.
Pennsylvania determined that these higher cost-effectiveness thresholds
did not impact the determination of what add on control technology was
feasible. Pennsylvania also reviewed examples of benchmarks used by
other states: Wisconsin, $2,500 per ton NOX; Illinois,
$2,500-$3,000 per ton NOX; Maryland, $3,500-$5,000 per ton
NOX; Ohio, $5,000 per ton NOX; and New York,
$5,000-$5,500 per ton NOX.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 46 Pa. Bulletin 2036 (April 23, 2016).
    \13\ PADEP Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, Final
Rulemaking RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NOX and
VOCs. October 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate prior final agency action, EPA found that PADEP's
cost effectiveness thresholds are reasonable and reflect control levels
achieved by the application and consideration of available control
technologies, after considering both the economic and technological
circumstances of Pennsylvania's own sources. See 84 FR 20274, 20286
(May 9, 2019).
    Comment 6: The commenter notes that good operating practices are
determined to be RACT for several sources at Global Advanced Metals.
However, the commenter claims that for Source IDs 102, 124, and 201,
those good operating practices are not defined in the permit.
    Response 6: The commenter is correct, in part, in stating that good
operating practices have been determined as VOC RACT for Source IDs
102, 124, and 201. However, they are only one aspect of the overall
RACT II requirements imposed on the sources. For all three sources,
PADEP conducted a VOC RACT analysis per 25 Pa. Code 129.99, concluding
that the additional control technologies evaluated were either
technically and/or economically infeasible and that RACT would, among
other requirements, be operation and maintenance of the source in
accordance with manufacturers' specifications and good air pollution
control practices.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This identical permit condition can be found in Global
Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037, Section D, Source
102, VI. Condition #013; Source ID 124, VI. Condition #010; and
Source ID 201, I. Condition #002, which is part of the record of
this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, PADEP imposed additional RACT requirements on
these sources based on existing permit conditions, which were
considered in the RACT analysis. For instance, Global Advanced Metals
currently utilizes a recovery unit to control methyl isobutyl ketone
(MIBK) emissions from Source ID 124, the extraction process in Building
74, and PADEP has imposed the requirement to operate this recovery unit
as a RACT requirement. The RACT II permit also includes efficiency
restrictions on the control device and extensive recordkeeping
requirements on operational factors such as flow rates, pressure drops,
MIBK content in influent and effluent, and maintenance downtime.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037,
Section D, Source ID 124, I. Condition #003 and IV. Conditions #006,
#007 and #010; which is part of the record of this docket and will
be incorporated into the SIP through this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIBK recovery system also helps to limit emissions from Source
ID 102, the tantalum salts process in Building 19.\16\ While the RACT
II permit does not specifically include the operation of the MIBK
recovery unit for Source 102, the recovery unit's operation is required
in the RACT II permit under Source 124, as identified in this preamble.
PADEP also imposed on Source 102 a throughput restriction on the number
of batches.\17\ Additionally, the RACT II for Source ID 201, the
wastewater treatment plant, included a requirement to provide PADEP
with relevant records found in the facility's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, upon request.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Global Advanced Metals' Alternative RACT Compliance
proposal, dated October 2016, which is part of the record for this
docket.
    \17\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037,
Section D, Source 102, I. Conditions #004, which is part of the
record for this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through
this action.
    \18\ See Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037,
Section D, Source ID 201, I. Condition #001, which is part of the
record for this docket and will be incorporated into the SIP through
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA concluded that ``good operating practices,'' which was
determined as VOC RACT for these three sources by PADEP, is adequately
defined in the facility's permit as ``operating and maintaining the
source in accordance with manufacturers' specifications.'' The
requirement to operate the source in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications holds the facility accountable for operating and
maintaining each of these three sources per the guidance established by
the manufacturer specifically for that particular source. The good
operating practices requirement is further clarified and strengthened
by the additional RACT requirements for recovery unit operation,
operational restrictions, and recordkeeping included in the redacted
permit to be incorporated into the SIP.
    Comment 7: The commenter notes that EPA is approving particulate
matter (PM) limits for Global Advanced Metals as part of the facility's
RACT determination. The commenter asks why and what relationship these
PM limits have in setting NOX and/or VOC RACT emission
limits for the source.
    Response 7: While the commenter does not provide a specific
reference to the PM limits in question, EPA assumes the commenter is
referring to the PM limit of ``not to exceed 0.02 grains per dry
standard cubic foot'' as a control device efficiency restriction for
the RotoClone wet dust collector.\19\ The RotoClone wet dust collector
was not one of the control technologies examined by PADEP for the
control of VOCs from Source 109. Rather, it is a control technology for
PM. The PM limits were established under other regulatory programs and
not the RACT program. It was identified as an ongoing facility
requirement while reviewing the VOC RACT requirements for the fugitive
emissions from ethanol transfer and storage operations. The commenter's
concern about PM is warranted. The PM limits are not included in the
source's permit to address RACT requirements and therefore should not
be incorporated into the SIP through the current rule. PADEP has
subsequently submitted a revised redacted permit that does not include
the PM requirements for incorporation into the SIP.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037,
Section D., Source ID 109, Condition #003(b)(2).
    \20\ See August 21, 2020 email from PADEP to EPA identifying
changes to redacted RACT II permit for Global Advanced Metals and
attaching the revised redacted permit. Both documents have been
added to the docket in this matter and the revised redacted permit
will be incorporated into the SIP. At the same time, PADEP has also
revised the original RACT II permit by deleting requirements for
Source 102 related to hydrogen flouride and hydrogen chloride for
similar reasons. Those facility requirements were not related to VOC
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: The commenter notes that for Source ID 201 at Global
Advanced Metals, the RACT determination includes the submission of
records required under the facility's NPDES permit. The commenter
claims that neither EPA nor PADEP provide justification or explanation
as to why submission of these records is necessary. The commenter
claims that EPA has no authority under the CAA to require submission of
records under the Clean Water Act (CWA), stating that the

Information Collection Request (ICR) approved for these records makes
no mention of allowing them to be used for purposes outside of the
NPDES program. The commenter claims that in order for EPA to require
submission of these records for CAA purposes, EPA would have to go
through the ICR process and calculate the burden on these sources to do
so.
    Response 8: The commenter is correct that among the RACT
requirements for Source ID 201, the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP),
Condition #001 requires the facility to ``provide to the DEP, upon
request, copies of records required by the NPDES permit.'' \21\ This
condition is determined to be part of the source's VOC RACT
determination per 25 Pa. Code 129.100(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Global Advanced Metals' redacted Permit No. 46-00037,
Section D, Source ID 201, Condition #001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees with the commenter that there is insufficient
justification or explanation as to why these records are relevant to
the VOC RACT determination for the WWTP. In its VOC RACT analysis,
PADEP explained that the constituents of the wastewater at Global
Advanced Metals include dissolved VOCs, which may be emitted to some
extent to the atmosphere in the treatment process.\22\ Knowledge of the
wastewater constituents informs PADEP's knowledge as to the
effectiveness of the wastewater treatment process in removing VOC
emissions at this source. Information on such constituents is contained
in the regular testing of total suspended solids and total dissolved
solids performed by Global Advanced Metals pursuant to its NPDES
permit. Therefore, this information is directly related to the control
of VOC air emissions from the WWTP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See PADEP's technical review memo, dated March 6, 2017,
which is included as part of the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's contentions about the use
of NPDES records for RACT purposes and believes the commenter may have
misinterpreted the nature of EPA's proposed action. In this SIP action,
EPA is not relying on any CWA information collection authorization and
is not adding such into the SIP. Rather, it is approving a legitimate
permit term established by PADEP, under its own independent authority
(the Air Pollution Control Act) to collect air emissions data, into the
Pennsylvania SIP. Data that is collected under the NPDES program
related to dissolved VOC constituents in a facility's wastewater is
such data and referring to the NPDES permit merely helps the facility
identify the required data but is not the authority being used to
collect it. The reference to the NPDES permit helps to identify that
the information needed to be supplied for compliance with the
Pennsylvania air permit is the same as the information being collected
under the CWA. It is merely a convenient way of identifying the data
needed to be reported under the air permit and is not the basis for the
state's authority to include it in the permit.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving case-by-case RACT determinations for four sources
in Pennsylvania, as required to meet obligations pursuant to the 1997
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of source-
specific RACT determinations under the 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for certain major sources of VOC and NOX in Pennsylvania.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III
Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further
Information Contact section of this preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rule of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section
804, however, exempts from section 801 the following types of rules:
Rules of particular applicability; rules relating to agency management
or personnel; and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice
that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular
applicability, EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding
this action under section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 18, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action approving Pennsylvania's NOX and VOC
RACT requirements for four case-by-case facilities for the 1997 and
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 22, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (d)(1) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``W.R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div''; `` W. R.
Grace and Co.--Reading Plant''; ``Cabot Performance Materials--
Boyertown''; ``Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook Plant''; and
``Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation'' (Permit No. PA-41-0005A);
and
0
b. Adding the following entries at the end of the table: ``Transco--
Salladasburg Station 520 (formerly referenced as Transcontinental Gas
Pipeline Corporation)''; ``Novipax (formerly referenced as W. R. Grace
and Co.--FORMPAC Div and W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading Plant)'';
``Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals (formerly referenced as Sunoco,
Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook Plant)''; and ``Global Advanced Metals USA,
Inc. (formerly referenced as Cabot Performance Materials--Boyertown)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                                explanations/  Sec.
          Name of source                  Permit No.                 County            State effective date     EPA approval date    Sec.   52.2063 and
                                                                                52.2064  citations
                                                                                \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
W. R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div.  PA-06-1036.............  Berks..................  5/12/95................  5/16/96, 61 FR 24706  See also
                                                                                52.2064(b)(2).
W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading       PA-06-315-001..........  Berks..................  6/4/92.................  5/16/96, 61 FR 24707  See also
 Plant.                                                                                52.2064(b)(2).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Cabot Performance Materials--      OP-46-0037.............  Montgomery.............  4/13/99................  12/15/00, 65 FR       See also
 Boyertown.                                                                                78418.                52.2064(b)(4).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus Hook    CP-23-0001.............  Delaware...............  6/8/95, 8/2/01.........  10/30/01, 66 FR       See also
 Plant.                                                                                54699.                52.2064(b)(3).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline      PA-41-0005A............  Lycoming...............  8/9/95.................  8/24/05, 70 FR 49496  See also
 Corporation.                                                                                52.2064(b)(1).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Transco--Salladasburg Station 520  41-00001...............  Lycoming...............  6/6/17.................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(1).
 (formerly referenced as                                                                                [INSERT FEDERAL
 Transcontinental Gas Pipeline                                                                                REGISTER CITATION].
 Corporation).
Novipax (formerly referenced as    06-05036...............  Berks..................  12/19/17...............  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(2).
 W. R. Grace and Co.--FORMPAC Div                                                                              [INSERT FEDERAL
 and W. R. Grace and Co.--Reading                                                                              REGISTER CITATION].
 Plant).
Sunoco Partners Marketing &        23-00119...............  Delaware...............  1/20/17................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(3).
 Terminals (formerly referenced                                                                                [INSERT FEDERAL
 as Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); Marcus                                                                                REGISTER CITATION].
 Hook Plant).

Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.   46-00037...............  Montgomery.............  3/10/17................  October 19, 2020,     52.2064(b)(4).
 (formerly reference as Cabot                                                                                [INSERT FEDERAL
 Performance Materials--                                                                                REGISTER CITATION].
 Boyertown).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cross-references that are not Sec.   52.2064 are to material that pre-date the notebook format. For more information, see Sec.   52.2063.

* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  52.2064 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2064   EPA-approved Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).

* * * * *
    (b) Approval of source-specific RACT requirements for 1997 and 2008
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards for the facilities
listed below are incorporated as specified below. (Rulemaking Docket
No. EPA-OAR-2020-0189).
    (1) Transco--Salladasburg Station 520--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 41-00001, issued June 6, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania,
which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. 41-0005A, issued August 9,
1995, except for Conditions 3, 4, 6, 8, 14, and 18, which remain as
RACT requirements applicable to the three 2050 hp Ingersoll Rand
engines #1, 2, and 3 (Source IDs P101, P102, P103). See also Sec.
52.2063(d)(1)(i) for prior RACT approval.
    (2) Novipax--Incorporating by reference Permit No. 06-05036, issued
December 19, 2017, as redacted by Pennsylvania, which supersedes the
prior RACT Plan Approval No. 06-1036, issued May 12, 1995 to W. R.
Grace and Co. FORMPAC Division, except for Conditions 3, 4 (applicable
to two pentane storage tanks, Source IDs 101 and 101A), 5 (applicable
to extruders, Source ID 102, and facility wide to Source IDs 103, 104,
105, 106, 106B, 106C, 107, and 108), 7 (applicable to Source IDs 101,
101A, and 102) and 8 (applicable to Source IDs 101, 101A, and 102),
which remain as RACT requirements applicable to the indicated sources,
and Plan Approval No. 06-315-001, issued June 4, 1992 to W. R. Grace
and Co.--Reading Plant, except for Conditions 4 (applicable to Source
ID 102), 5 (applicable to Source IDs 101 and 101A), and 6 (applicable
to Source IDs 101, 101A, and 102), which remain as RACT requirements
applicable to the indicated sources. See also Sec.
52.2063(c)(108)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approvals.
    (3) Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals--Incorporating by
reference Permit No. 23-00119, issued January 20, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Compliance Permit No. CP-
23-0001, issued June 8, 1995 and amended on August 2, 2001, except for
Conditions 5E (applicable to diesel engine and stormwater pumps, Source
ID 113), 6A (applicable to marine vessel loading, Source ID 115), 6B
(tank truck loading), 6C (applicable to cooling tower 15-2B, Source ID
139), and 6D (applicable to waste water treatment, Source 701), which
remain as RACT requirements applicable to the indicated sources. See
also Sec.  52.2063(c)(179)(i)(B)(6) for prior RACT approval.
    (4) Global Advanced Metals USA, Inc.--Incorporating by reference
Permit No. 46-00037, issued March 10, 2017, as redacted by
Pennsylvania, which supersedes the prior RACT Permit No. OP-46-0037,
issued April 13, 1999, except for condition 15, which remains as a RACT
requirement applicable to the tantalum salts process (Source ID 102),
the extraction process (Source ID 124), the wastewater treatment plant
(Source ID 201), and fugitive emissions from ethanol transfer and
storage (Source 109). See also Sec.  52.2063(c)(143)(i)(B)(20) for
prior RACT approval.

[FR Doc. 2020-21438 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33286-33287]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15173]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33158; 812-14828]

SL Advisors, LLC and ETF Series Solutions

July 11, 2018.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain
disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of
Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of
Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-
07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (``Disclosure Requirements'').
The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and
replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant
relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to
the sub-advisers.

APPLICANTS: ETF Series Solutions (the ``Trust''), a Delaware statutory
trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment
company with multiple series, and SL Advisors, LLC (the ``Initial
Adviser''), a New Jersey limited liability company registered as an
investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

FILING DATES: The application was filed on October 2, 2017 and amended
on May 3, 2018.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 3, 2018, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: ETF Series Solutions,
615 E Michigan Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202, and SL Advisors, LLC, 210
Elmer Street, Westfield, NJ 07090-2128.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6817, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Summary of the Application

    1. The Initial Adviser is the investment adviser to the American
Energy Independence ETF (``Initial Fund'') pursuant to an investment
management agreement with the Trust (``Investment Management
Agreement'').\1\ Under the terms of the Investment Management
Agreement, the Adviser, subject to the supervision of

the board of trustees of the Trust (``Board''), provides continuous
investment management of the assets of each Subadvised Fund. Consistent
with the terms of the Investment Management Agreement, the Adviser may,
subject to the approval of the Board, delegate portfolio management
responsibilities of all or a portion of the assets of a Subadvised Fund
to one or more Sub-Advisers.\2\ The Adviser will continue to have
overall responsibility for the management and investment of the assets
of each Subadvised Fund. The Adviser will evaluate, select, and
recommend Sub-Advisers to manage the assets of a Subadvised Fund and
will oversee, monitor and review the Sub-Advisers and their performance
and recommend the removal or replacement of Sub-Advisers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request relief with respect to the Initial Fund,
as well as to any future series of the Trust and any other existing
or future registered open-end management investment company or
series thereof that, in each case, is advised by the Initial Adviser
or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control
with, the Initial Adviser or its successors (each, also an
``Adviser''), uses the multi-manager structure described in the
application, and complies with the terms and conditions set forth in
the application (each, a ``Subadvised Fund''). For purposes of the
requested order, ``successor'' is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization. Future Subadvised Funds may be
operated as a master-feeder structure pursuant to section
12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. In such a structure, certain series of the
Trust (each, a ``Feeder Fund'') may invest substantially all of
their assets in a Subadvised Fund (a ``Master Fund'') pursuant to
section 12(d)(1)(E) of the Act. No Feeder Fund will engage any sub-
advisers other than through approving the engagement of one or more
of the Master Fund's sub-advisers.
    \2\ As used herein, a ``Sub-Adviser'' for a Subadvised Fund is
(1) an indirect or direct ``wholly owned subsidiary'' (as such term
is defined in the Act) of the Adviser for that Subadvised Fund, or
(2) a sister company of the Adviser for that Subadvised Fund that is
an indirect or direct ``wholly-owned subsidiary'' of the same
company that, indirectly or directly, wholly owns the Adviser (each
of (1) and (2) a ``Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser'' and collectively, the
``Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisers''), or (3) not an ``affiliated person''
(as such term is defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of the
Subadvised Fund, any Feeder Fund invested in a Master Fund, the
Trust, or the Adviser, except to the extent that an affiliation
arises solely because the Sub-Adviser serves as a sub-adviser to a
Subadvised Fund (``Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisers'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants request an order to permit the Adviser, subject to
the approval of the Board, to enter into investment sub-advisory
agreements with the Sub-Advisers (each, a ``Sub-Advisory Agreement'')
and materially amend such Sub-Advisory Agreements without obtaining the
shareholder approval required under section 15(a) of the Act and rule
18f-2 under the Act.\3\ Applicants also seek an exemption from the
Disclosure Requirements to permit a Subadvised Fund to disclose (as
both a dollar amount and a percentage of the Subadvised Fund's net
assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to the Adviser and any Wholly-
Owned Sub-Advisers; (b) the aggregate fees paid to Non-Affiliated Sub-
Advisers; and (c) the fee paid to each Affiliated Sub-Adviser
(collectively, Aggregate Fee Disclosure'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requested relief will not extend to any sub-adviser,
other than a Wholly-Owned Sub-Adviser, who is an affiliated person,
as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Subadvised Fund, of
any Feeder Fund, or of the Adviser, other than by reason of serving
as a sub-adviser to one or more of the Subadvised Funds
(``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').
    \4\ For any Subadvised Fund that is a Master Fund, the relief
would also permit any Feeder Fund invested in that Master Fund to
disclose Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards,
appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Funds' shareholders and
notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to
protect the interests of the Subadvised Funds' shareholders.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard
because, as further explained in the application, the Investment
Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval,
while the role of the Sub-Advisers is substantially equivalent to that
of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder
approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and
expenses on the Subadvised Funds. Applicants believe that the requested
relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it
will improve the Adviser's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-
Advisers that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Funds.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15173 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13535]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-101-000]

Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on February 27, 2015, Midwestern Gas Transmission
Company, (Midwestern Gas), 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103,
filed in the above Docket, a prior notice request pursuant to section
157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting authorization to construct and operate the Herscher
Compressor Station Project (Project), in Kankakee County, Illinois.
Specifically, Midwestern proposes to construct an approximately 15,000-
horsepower natural gas fired engine compressor station that will allow
it to provide up to 125,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation
service on its system. Midwestern estimates the cost of the Project to
be approximately $25,900,453, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Denise
Adams, Manager Rates and Regulatory Analysis, Midwestern Gas
Transmission Company, 100 West 5th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma, at (918)
732-1408.
    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant
notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of
intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff
may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest,
the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: March 9, 2015.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05881 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72128-72129]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-24]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
February 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR activities by mail to
either: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590; or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of Information Technology, Federal Railroad

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their respective
comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard stating,
``Comments on OMB Control Number 2130-0537,'' and should also include
the title of the ICR. Alternatively, comments may be faxed to 202-493-
6216 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to Ms. Wells at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Ms. Toone at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB
control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize
comments received in response to this notice in a subsequent notice and
include them in its information collection submission to OMB for
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Ms. Kim
Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Technology, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) Whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) Reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Railroad Police Officers.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0537.
    Abstract: FRA regulations in 49 CFR part 207 require railroads to
notify States of all designated police officers who perform duties
outside of their respective jurisdictions. This is necessary to verify
proper police authority.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 746 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Average time
         CFR section              Respondent       Total annual    per responses   Total annual     Total cost
                                   universe         responses        (minutes)     burden hours   equivalent \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
207.4(a)--RR Notice to State   746 railroads...  35 written                   15               9            $684
 Officials--Written notice of                     notices.
 RR police officer's
 commission to each State in
 which the RR police officer
 shall protect the railroad's
 property, personnel,
 passengers, and cargo.
207.4(b)--RR copy of written   746 railroads...  35 records.....               2               1              76
 notices to State officials.
207.6--Transfers--Application  746 railroads...  40 records.....               2               1              76
 by RR police officers for
 new State certification/
 commission when transferring
 primary employment or
 residence from one State to
 another.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  746 railroads...  110 responses..             N/A              11             836
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The hourly wage rate is obtained from the Surface Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series
  using the appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes 75-percent overhead charges.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 110.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 11 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $836.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-28128 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P