[Federal Register: March 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 14315-14316]
[DOCID:fr27mr07-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55493; File No. SR-ISE-2006-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment
No. 1 Thereto Relating to Penny Increments for Block Mechanism Orders

March 20, 2007.
    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 December 13, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE.
On March 19, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed
rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, 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 ISE is proposing to amend ISE Rule 716 to allow orders to be
entered into the Block Mechanism in penny increments and to receive
executions in penny increments. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at ISE, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.iseoptions.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 ISE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has

prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects 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 offers a Block Mechanism for the execution of single-
sided, block-sized orders. The Block Mechanism exposes orders of at
least 50 contracts to all ISE members for three seconds, giving members
an opportunity to respond with contra-side trading interest for their
own account or on behalf of their customers.\3\ Currently, orders may
be entered and executed using the Block Mechanism at the standard 5 and
10 cent increments and at ``split prices'' (2.5 cents for options
trading in 5 cent standard increments and 5 cents for options trading
in 10 cent standard increments). The Exchange proposes to allow these
orders to be entered and executed in penny increments as a way to
provide greater flexibility in the pricing of block-size orders and to
allow a greater opportunity for price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Rule 716 prohibits members
from entering Responses for the account of an options market maker
from another options exchange. This is the only limitation regarding
who may enter Responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In particular, the proposal will provide additional
pricing flexibility and opportunities for block-size orders to receive
price improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 No. SR-ISE-2006-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-2006-77. 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 at 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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 No. SR-
ISE-2006-77 and should be submitted on or before April 17, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5546 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41731-41739]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17888]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076; FRL-9439-4]
RIN 2060-AQ97

Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
and Stage II Waiver

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing criteria for determining whether onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) is in widespread use for purposes of
controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions throughout the motor
vehicle fleet. The EPA is also proposing to determine the date at which
such widespread use of ORVR will occur. Once the Administrator has
determined that widespread use has occurred, the Administrator may
waive Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) statutory requirements for states to
implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline
dispensing facilities in areas classified ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' or
``Extreme'' for nonattainment of the ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). Based on the proposed criteria, the EPA is proposing
to determine that June 30, 2013, will be the date when ``widespread
use'' will occur and the Stage II waiver will be effective. This
rulemaking was identified as an example of examining rules to make sure
they are still achieving the environmental benefit that was originally
intended.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2011.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing on or before August 1, 2011, we will hold a public
hearing. Additional information about the hearing would be published in
a subsequent Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-1076, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1076
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Mailcode:
6102T. Please include two copies if possible.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076, Environmental
Protection Agency in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in
the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1076. The 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 information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room
Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C539-02,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
919-541-0824; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities directly affected by this action include states (typically
state air pollution control agencies) and, in some cases, local
governments that develop air pollution control rules that apply to
areas classified as ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' or ``Extreme'' for
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS. Individuals and companies that
operate gasoline dispensing facilities may be indirectly affected by
virtue of state action in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that
implement provisions resulting from final rulemaking on this action;
many of these sources are in the following groups:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Industry group              SIC \a\            NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline stations...............         5541            447110, 447190
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?

    Public Hearing: To request a public hearing or information
pertaining to a public hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela S.
Long, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C504-03, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
D. How is this preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. How can I find information about a possible public hearing?
    D. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
    A. What requirements for Stage II gasoline vapor recovery apply
for ozone nonattainment areas?
    B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems
    C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Systems
    D. Incompatibility Between Some Vapor Recovery Systems
    E. Analytical Approach to Determining Whether ORVR Is In
Widespread Use
III. Proposed Action
IV. Estimated Cost Savings
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and
Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
VI. Statutory Authority

II. Background

A. What requirements for Stage II gasoline vapor recovery apply for
ozone nonattainment areas?

    Under CAA section 182(b)(3), Stage II vapor recovery systems are
required to be used at larger gasoline dispensing facilities located in
``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' and ``Extreme'' nonattainment areas for
ozone.\1\ Based on deadlines established in the Act, within 24 months
from the effective date of the initial area designation and
classification, states must adopt a Stage II program into their SIPs,
and the controls must be installed according to specified deadlines
following state rule adoption. For existing facilities, the
installation deadlines depend on the date the facilities were built and
the monthly volume of gasoline dispensed. See CAA sections
182(b)(3)(A)-(B), and 324(a)-(c).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See CAA section 182(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3).
Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement also applied
in all Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However, under section
202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements of
section 182(b)(3) no longer apply in Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas after EPA promulgated ORVR standards on April 6, 1994, 59 FR
16262, codified at 40 CFR parts 86 (including 86.098-8), 88 and 600.
Under implementation rules issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements under
section 182(b)(3) and as they applied for the 1-hour ozone standard.
40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a).
    \2\ Section 182(b)(3)(B) has the following effective date
requirements for implementation of Stage II after the adoption date
by a state of a Stage II rule: 6 months after adoption of the state
rule, for gas stations built after the enactment date (which for
newly designated areas would be the designation date); 1 year after
adoption date, for gas stations pumping at least 100,000 gal/month
based on average monthly sales over 2-year period before adoption
date; and 2 years after adoption, for all others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the CAA provides discretionary authority to the EPA
Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage
II requirement after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. See CAA section
202(a)(6). The EPA first began the phase-in of ORVR by requiring that
40 percent of passenger cars manufactured in model year 1998 be
equipped with ORVR. The ORVR requirement for passenger cars was
increased to 100 percent by model year 2000. Phase-in continued for
other vehicle types and ORVR has been a requirement on virtually all
new gasoline-powered motor vehicles (passenger cars, light trucks, and
complete heavy-duty gasoline powered vehicles under 10,000 lbs gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR)) sold since model year 2006. See 40 CFR
part 86. Currently, ORVR-equipped vehicles comprise approximately 64
percent of the in-service vehicle fleet nationwide, and account for
around 74 percent of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the nationwide
fleet. The percentage of non-ORVR vehicles and the percentage of VMT
driven by those vehicles declines each year as these older vehicles
wear out and are removed from service. Since certain vehicles are not
required to have ORVR, including motorcycles and incomplete heavy-duty
gasoline powered truck chassis, under current requirements the
nationwide motor vehicle fleet would never be entirely equipped with
ORVR.
    The EPA has been evaluating appropriate criteria for determining
when widespread use of ORVR has occurred and for granting waivers to
the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement and has issued policy
memoranda addressing the issue in limited contexts.\3\ As discussed in
these memoranda, the EPA interprets section 202(a)(6) of the CAA to
give discretion to the Administrator to revise or waive the section
182(b)(3) requirement when widespread use occurs either through a
single national rulemaking or separate determinations for specific
areas. By its terms, section 202(a)(6) does not specify the scope or
type of motor vehicle fleet for which the EPA must find ORVR is in
widespread use before revising or waiving the section 182(b)(3) Stage
II requirement. Nor does the statutory language preclude revising or
waiving the requirement for individual ``Serious,'' ``Severe'' or
``Extreme'' nonattainment areas, or distinguishing between different
types of areas (e.g., the EPA could determine widespread use has
occurred at different times for different areas, and revise or waive
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements accordingly). Therefore, the
EPA retains significant discretion in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Regional Air
Division Directors, ``Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in
Situations Where Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
is Demonstrated'' (Dec. 12, 2006); see also, Memorandum from Stephen
D. Page and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, ``Removal of Stage II Vapor
Recovery from Refueling of Corporate Fleets'' (Nov. 28, 2007). Both
of these memoranda are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our evaluation of the available data and appropriate
criteria for determining that widespread use of ORVR has occurred, the
EPA is proposing a determination of ORVR widespread use and a general
waiver of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement effective
nationwide, on June 30, 2013. If promulgated, this would apply to any
area that currently requires a Stage II program under section
182(b)(3). Additionally, any nonattainment area classified ``Serious,''
``Severe,'' or ``Extreme'' for the first time after approximately
January 1, 2011, would not be required to adopt and implement a new
Stage II program under section 182(b)(3). This is because such areas,
under the terms of section 182(b)(3), would not be required to
implement Stage II programs until 2 and a half years after such
classification, which would be the effective date of the proposed
widespread use determination and section 182(b)(3) waiver.
    We also propose that individual states (with or without existing
Stage II programs) may separately submit SIP revisions to the EPA that
demonstrate that ORVR widespread use has occurred (or will occur) on a
date earlier than June 30, 2013, for areas in their states, and request
that the EPA revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) requirement as it
applies to only those areas. Such a separate demonstration would
require an EPA rulemaking and the Administrator's approval before it
could be effective. States may use the procedures discussed in Section
II E. titled Analytical Approaches to Determining Whether ORVR is in
Widespread Use with area-specific data rather than the generalized,
national data shown in Table 1 in that section.
    Subsequent to the effective waiver date of the section 182(b)(3)
Stage II requirement, areas currently implementing SIP-approved Stage
II programs, as a result of obligations under the 1-hour or 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, would be required to continue implementing these programs
until an EPA SIP revision approves removal of the requirement from the
state's ozone implementation plan. Although the EPA is proposing to
determine that ORVR is in widespread use as of June 30, 2013, states
may prepare and submit SIP revisions before that date so that the EPA
can review and approve such SIP revisions as soon as possible after
June 30, 2013.

    To approve a SIP revision removing Stage II provisions, the EPA
must ensure that such removal would not interfere with other applicable
CAA requirements under section 110(l), which precludes the
Administrator from approving a SIP revision if it would interfere with
applicable CAA requirements (including attainment and maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS). This is discussed in more detail in Section III of
this preamble. Of course, even after the EPA takes final action to find
widespread use of ORVR has occurred and issues a waiver of the section
182(b)(3) requirement, states remain free under CAA section 116 to
choose to implement Stage II programs in any area, and would not be
forced to remove existing Stage II provisions from a SIP.

B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems

    When an automobile or other vehicle is brought into a service
station to be refueled, the empty portion of the fuel tank on the
vehicle contains gasoline vapors. When liquid gasoline is pumped into
the partially empty gas tank the vapors are forced out of the tank as
the tank fills with liquid gasoline. Where air pollution control
technology is not used, these vapors are emitted into the air. In the
atmosphere, these vapors can react with sunlight, nitrogen oxides and
other volatile organic compounds to form ozone. In order to prevent
this, the 1990 CAA Amendments added section 182(b)(3), requiring owners
or operators of gasoline dispensing facilities in Moderate, Severe or
Extreme ozone nonattainment areas to install and operate a system for
recovery of gasoline vapor from the fueling of motor vehicles. This
requirement only applies to facilities that sell more than a specified
number of gallons per month and is set forth in sections 182(b)(3)(A)-
(C) and 324(a)-(c). States were required to adopt rules for this
requirement no later than 2 years after the enactment of the 1990 CAA
Amendments. As a consequence of these provisions, gas station owners
and operators in Moderate, Severe, or Extreme nonattainment areas have
installed these vapor control systems, known as ``Stage II controls.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This designation is to distinguish them from vapor recovery
systems on the transport tanker trucks that deliver gasoline to the
service stations, which are known as Stage I systems. Stage I
systems direct vapors from the underground storage tank at the
service station back into the tanker truck as the underground tank
is filled with liquid gasoline from the tanker truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stage II control systems often have a rubber boot around the
gasoline nozzle spout that fits snugly up to a vehicle's gasoline fill
pipe during refueling of the vehicle. Gasoline vapors from the fill
pipe are forced into this sleeve (rubber boot) rather than emitted into
the air. Typically, a separate hose allows the vapor to flow back into
the underground gasoline storage tank. A concentric hose (one hose
inside another) is commonly used; gasoline flows through one of the
hoses into the vehicle and vapors flow back through the other hose into
the dispenser and from there through underground piping to the
underground storage tank.
    There are two basic approaches to Stage II vapor recovery: balance
and vacuum assist. With a balance system, when gasoline in the
underground tank is pumped into a vehicle, a positive pressure
differential is created between the vehicle tank and the underground
tank. This pressure differential draws the gasoline vapors from the
vehicle fill pipe through the rubber boot and the concentric hoses and
underground piping into the underground tank. This is known as a
balance system, since the gasoline vapors from the vehicle tank flow
into the underground tank to balance pressures.
    Another type of Stage II system uses a vacuum pump on the vapor
return line to help draw vapors from the automobile fill pipe into the
underground storage tank. An advantage of this type of system is that
the rubber boot around the nozzle can be smaller and lighter (or not
used at all) and still draw the vapors into the vapor return hose. This
makes for an easier-to-handle nozzle, which is popular with customers.
This type of Stage II system is known as a vacuum assist system.
    The in-use efficiency of a Stage II program is directly
proportional to the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of
the control equipment at the gasoline dispensing facilities.\5\
Damaged, missing, or improperly operating components or systems can
significantly degrade the control effectiveness of a Stage II system.
Experience has shown that frequent inspections are necessary to ensure
that the Stage II equipment is working as designed. Although new Stage
II equipment may be required to achieve 95 percent control
effectiveness at certification, studies have shown that in-use control
efficiency depends on frequent inspection by state agencies and
operator actions. The EPA guidance specifies minimum training,
inspection, and testing criteria, and most states have adopted and
supplemented these as deemed necessary for balance and vacuum assist
systems.\6\ However, in-use effectiveness ultimately depends on the
consistency of inspections, follow-up by state agencies, and follow
through by operators to perform inspections and conduct maintenance in
a correct and timely manner. The EPA studies have calculated in-use
efficiencies of 92 percent with semi-annual inspections, 86 percent
with annual inspections and 62 percent with minimal or less frequent
state inspections.\7\ In-use Stage II vapor recovery system efficiency
depends heavily on inspection frequency and maintenance efforts and the
vigilance of station owners and states in these areas. Thus, the in-use
effectiveness of Stage II within any state or nonattainment area may
vary over time. Nonetheless, for over 15 years this technology has
provided substantial VOC emission reductions in ozone nonattainment
areas, which needed those reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS as well
as reductions in air toxic emissions such as benzene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Petroleum Equipment Institute has published recommended
installation practices (PEI/RP300-93) and most states require
inspection, testing, and evaluation before a system is commissioned
for use.
    \6\ ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling
Control Programs'' U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Mobile Sources, December 1991.
    \7\ ``Technical Guidance--Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Vehicle Refueling at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Volume I: Chapters'' EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Systems

    In addition to Stage II controls, the 1990 CAA Amendments required
another method of controlling these emissions. Section 202(a)(6) of the
CAA requires an onboard system of capturing vehicle refueling
emissions, commonly referred to as an ORVR system.\8\ ORVR consists of
an activated carbon canister installed in the vehicle into which vapors
being expelled from the vehicle fuel tank are forced to flow. There the
vapors are captured by the activated carbon in the canister. When the
engine is started, the vapors are drawn off of the activated carbon and
into the engine where they are burned as fuel. The EPA promulgated ORVR
standards on April 6, 1994, 59 FR 16262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Unlike Stage II, which is a requirement only in ozone
nonattainment areas, ORVR requirements apply to vehicles everywhere.
More detail on ORVR is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/orvr.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 202(a) (6) of the CAA required that the EPA's ORVR
standards apply to light-duty vehicles manufactured beginning in the
fourth model year after the model year in which the standards were
promulgated, and that ORVR systems provide a minimum evaporative
emission capture efficiency of 95 percent. Section 202(a)(6) also
provided that upon promulgation of the ORVR

rules, Moderate ozone nonattainment areas are no longer subject to the
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement. However, the section 182(b)(3)
Stage II requirement continues to apply for ``Serious,'' ``Severe,''
and ``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas, unless and until under
section 202(a)(6) the EPA finds that ORVR is in widespread use in the
motor vehicle fleet and issues a rule waiving the section 182(b)(3)
Stage II requirement.
    Automobile manufacturers began installing ORVR on new passenger
cars in 1998 when 40 percent of new cars were required to have ORVR.
The percentage of new cars with ORVR increased to 80 percent in 1999
and 100 percent in 2000. ORVR for light duty trucks and vans (<6000 lbs
GVWR began to phase in during 2001 with 40 percent of such new vehicles
required to have ORVR in 2001, 80 percent in 2002 and 100 percent in
2003. New heavier vehicles (6001-8500 lbs GVWR) were required to have
40 percent with ORVR by 2004, 80 percent by 2005 and 100 percent by
2006. New trucks up to 10,000 lbs GVWR manufactured as a complete
chassis were all required to have ORVR by 2006. So, after 2006, most
new gasoline-powered vehicles less than 10,000 lbs GVWR are required to
have ORVR.
    ORVR does not apply to all vehicles, but those not covered by the
ORVR requirement comprise a small percentage of the gasoline-powered
highway vehicle fleet (approximately 1.5 percent). The EPA estimates
that 60 to 65 percent of vehicles currently on the road have ORVR.\9\
This percentage will increase over time as older cars are replaced by
new cars. However, under the current regulatory construct, it is likely
that there will always be a small percentage of non-ORVR vehicles
(light-duty or otherwise) on the roads, and therefore there will likely
always be some very small percentage of gasoline refueling emissions
that could not be captured by ORVR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
Widespread Use Assessment.'' A copy of this memorandum is located in
the docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even prior to the EPA's adoption of ORVR requirements, in 1993 the
EPA adopted Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System requirements for passenger
cars and light trucks, and eventually did so for heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\10\ These systems are designed to
monitor the in-use performance of various vehicle emission control
systems and components including evaporative emission controls.\11\
ORVR systems are basically a subset of evaporative emission systems
because they share the same vapor lines, purge valves, purge lines, and
activated carbon canister. OBD II systems were phased in for these
vehicle classes over the period from 1994-1996 for lighter vehicles and
2005-2007 for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles, so during the same time
frame that manufacturers were implementing ORVR into their vehicles,
they already had implemented or were implementing OBD II systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Federal Register at 58 FR 9468 published February 19,
1993, and subsequent amendments and the latest OBD regulations at 40
CFR part 86.1806-05 for program requirements in various years.
    \11\ The OBD system monitors virtually every component that can
affect the emission performance of the vehicle to ensure that the
vehicle remains as clean as possible over its entire life. If a
problem is detected, the OBD system illuminates a warning lamp on
the vehicle instrument panel to alert the driver. This warning lamp
typically contains the phrase ``Check Engine'' or ``Service Engine
Soon.'' The system will also store important information about the
detected malfunction so that a repair technician can accurately find
and fix the problem. Also, OBD system codes are interrogated and
evaluated in over 30 state operated vehicle emission inspection/
maintenance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2000, the EPA published a report addressing the effectiveness of
OBD II control systems.\12\ This study concluded that enhanced
evaporative and ORVR emission control systems are durable and low
emitting relative to the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) enhanced
evaporative emission standards and that OBD II evaporative emissions
checks are a suitable replacement for functional evaporative emission
tests in state inspection/maintenance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Effectiveness of OBD II Evaporative Emission Monitors--30
Vehicle Study,'' EPA 420-R-00-018, October 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Incompatibility Between Some Vapor Recovery Systems

    When an ORVR vehicle is fueled at a service station equipped with a
vacuum assist Stage II vapor recovery system, a lack of compatibility
between the two controls may actually cause the emission reduction of
the two systems together to be less than the emission reduction
achieved by either system alone. The problem arises when the ORVR
canister captures the gasoline emissions from the motor vehicle fuel
tank. Instead of drawing vapor-laden air from the vehicle fuel tank
into the underground storage tank, the vacuum pump of the Stage II
system draws fresh air into the underground storage tank. The fresh air
causes gasoline in the underground tank to evaporate inside the
underground tank and thus creates an increase in pressure in the
underground storage tank. As a result, gasoline vapors may be forced
out of the underground storage tank vent pipe into the ambient air.
This incompatibility can result in a 1 to 10 percent decrease in
control efficiency over what would be achieved by either Stage II or
ORVR alone. The decrease in efficiency varies depending on the vacuum
assist technology design (including the ratio of volume of air drawn
into the underground tank compared to the volume of gasoline
dispensed), the gasoline Reid vapor pressure, the air and gasoline
temperatures, and the fraction of throughput dispensed to ORVR
vehicles. There are various technologies that address this
incompatibility, such as nozzles that sense when fresh air is being
drawn into the underground storage tank and stop the air flow. Another
solution is the addition of processors on the underground storage tank
vent pipe that capture or destroy the gasoline vapor emissions from the
vent pipe. Installing these technologies adds to the expense of the
control systems and is in some cases a reason to remove Stage II
systems.

E. Analytical Approach to Determining Whether ORVR Is in Widespread Use

    The EPA has considered several possible analytical approaches to
determining when and whether ORVR is in widespread use in the motor
vehicle fleet. The approach the EPA proposes to use here is to focus on
the volume of gasoline that is dispensed into vehicles equipped with
ORVR, and to compare the emissions reductions achieved by ORVR alone to
the reductions that can be achieved by Stage II controls alone.
    Table 1 shows information related to the penetration of ORVR in the
national motor vehicle fleet projected to 2020. The overall efficiency
of ORVR at reducing refueling emissions increases as older vehicles are
replaced by newer ORVR-equipped vehicles. Overall ORVR efficiency is
shown in column 5 of Table 1 and is determined by multiplying the
fraction of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles by ORVR's 98
percent control efficiency.

                  Table 1--Projected Penetration of ORVR in the National Vehicle Fleet by Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    1                             2                 3                 4                 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Vehicle                            Gasoline
              Calendar year                  population      VMT percentage       dispensed      ORVR efficiency
                                             percentage                          percentage        percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006....................................              39.5              48.7              46.2              45.3
2007....................................              45.3              54.9              52.5              51.5
2008....................................              50.1              60.0              57.6              56.4
2009....................................              54.3              64.5              62.1              60.9
2010....................................              59.0              69.3              66.9              65.6
2011....................................              63.6              73.9              71.5              70.1
2012....................................              67.9              78.0              75.6              74.1
2013....................................              71.7              81.6              79.3              77.7
2014....................................              75.2              84.6              82.6              80.9
2015....................................              78.4              87.2              85.3              83.6
2016....................................              81.2              89.4              87.7              85.9
2017....................................              83.6              91.2              89.7              87.9
2018....................................              85.6              92.7              91.3              89.5
2019....................................              87.5              93.9              92.7              90.8
2020....................................              89.0              94.9              93.9              92.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment'' in the docket (number EPA-
  HQ-OAR-2010-1076) addressing details on issues related to values in this table.
Note: In this table, the columns have the following meaning.
1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year.
2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR.
3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR.
4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway
  motor vehicles.
5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98.\13\

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

    \13\ Based on tests of over 1000 in-use ORVR-equipped vehicles,
the average in-use efficiency of ORVR is 98 percent. The legal
requirement for ORVR is 95 percent efficiency. Thus, the actual
reported control achieved in practice is greater than the
statutorily required level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimates that the amount of control that ORVR alone would
need to achieve to be equivalent to the amount of control Stage II
alone would achieve is 77.4 percent. This estimate is based on the
expected in-use control efficiency for a typical Stage II program in
nonattainment areas under the hypothetical scenario that ORVR does not
exist. The EPA estimates that nationally in areas where basic Stage II
systems are used the control efficiency of Stage II gasoline vapor
control systems is 86 percent. The use of this value depends on the
assumption that annual inspections and appropriate maintenance are
conducted in a correct and timely manner. This control efficiency is
achieved only at refueling stations where a Stage II system is required
to be installed, so not all of the gasoline dispensed in a
nonattainment area is controlled by a Stage II system. The EPA
estimates that the percentage of gasoline dispensed in an area that is
covered by Stage II controls is 90 percent.\14\ Multiplying the
estimated efficiency of Stage II systems (86 percent) by the estimated
fraction of gasoline dispensed in nonattainment areas from Stage II-
equipped gasoline pumps yields an estimate of the area-wide control
efficiency of Stage II programs of 77.4 percent (0.90 x 0.86 = 0.774 or
77.4 percent). Table 1 indicates this level of control efficiency is
expected to be achieved between the end of calendar year 2012 and the
end of 2013. The EPA expects ORVR alone to achieve emissions reductions
equal to Stage II alone during calendar year 2013; therefore, the EPA
is proposing to determine that ORVR will be in widespread use by June
30, 2013, or the midpoint of calendar year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See section 4.4.3 (especially Figure 4-14 and Table 4-4) in
``Technical Guidance--Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of
Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,
Volume I: Chapters,'' EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991. A copy of
this document is located in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1076. This is based on annual enforcement inspections and on
allowable exemptions of 10,000/50,000 gallons per month as described
in section 324a of the CAA. EPA recognizes that these two values
vary by state and that in some cases actual in-use efficiencies,
prescribed exemption levels, or both may be either higher or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also observe from Table 1 that by the end of calendar year 2012
more than 75 percent of gasoline will be dispensed into ORVR-equipped
vehicles. The EPA believes that this percentage of ORVR coverage (>75
percent) is substantial enough to inherently be viewed as
``widespread'' under any ordinary understanding of that term. The
dictionary defines ``widespread'' as meaning ``widely diffused or
prevalent.'' Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, 1348 (1986).
Seventy-five percent serves as a reasonable benchmark for this
threshold, as it is substantially more than a majority value, and as it
is not necessary for something to reach or approach a threshold of 100
percent for it to become ``prevalent,'' which is in turn defined as
``generally or widely accepted, practiced or favored.'' Id., at 933. In
Table 1, the percentage of VMT by ORVR-equipped vehicles (column 3) and
the amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles (column 4)
reach or exceed 75 percent between the end of year 2011 and end of
2012. The EPA believes this provides further support for establishing a
widespread use date after the end of calendar year 2012.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to determine that ORVR widespread use will
occur at the mid-point in the 2013 calendar year, June 30, 2013. The
EPA is proposing June 30, 2013, as the effective date for both the
determination of ORVR widespread use and a waiver of the CAA section
182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for ``Serious,'' ``Severe'' and
``Extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas.
    This ORVR widespread use determination and section 182(b)(3) waiver
would apply to the entire country, including areas that are not now
classified as ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' or ``Extreme'' for ozone
nonattainment but that may in the future be classified as ``Serious,''
``Severe,'' or ``Extreme''

(e.g., a current ozone nonattainment area that may be reclassified to
``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' or ``Extreme'' as a result of a state's
request or as a consequence for failing to attain the ozone standard by
the specified attainment date).
    If promulgated, the ORVR widespread use determination and section
182(b)(3) waiver determination would not obligate states to remove any
existing Stage II vapor recovery requirements. For states that choose
to remove the program, they will need to ensure that removal of the
program does not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
per CAA section 110(1). Using the effective date of an ORVR widespread
use determination and waiver of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II
requirement, states that wish to act upon the Stage II waiver and
remove existing EPA-approved Stage II requirements from their SIPs
would need to submit a SIP revision requesting the EPA to approve such
action that is effective after the June 30, 2013, date. States would
not need to wait until June 30, 2013, to submit such SIP revision
subject to the provisions of CAA section 110(1).
    In their SIP analysis, states may elect to conduct area-specific
analyses, specifying parameters that are reflective of the types and
ranges of equipment and operating patterns in use in the relevant area.
Such an individualized analysis performed by a state may demonstrate
that there are benefits to retaining the program beyond the widespread
use date established by the EPA through national analysis. States may
choose to continue to require or enhance Stage II controls in a
particular area if they continue to achieve air quality benefits.
Jurisdictions that choose to continue using Stage II systems after the
widespread use date should consider taking appropriate actions to
correct any excess emission incompatibility between ORVR and vacuum
assist Stage II systems.
    Section 110(l) precludes the Administrator from approving a SIP
revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements
(including, but not limited to, attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS and achieving reasonable further progress). Some states may find
that by removing Stage II requirements they are reducing the overall
level of reductions for which they have previously obtained credit.
Such states would need to show that foregoing any additional VOC
emissions reductions resulting from Stage II would not interfere with
attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS in violation of section
110(l). In such circumstances it is possible that additional emissions
reductions may be needed to offset the removal of Stage II. It should
also be noted that removing Stage II may affect mobile source emissions
budgets, so we urge states to consult with the state and local
transportation agencies. States could choose to keep Stage II for an
additional period of time to allow further ORVR penetration in the
motor vehicle fleet or to obtain equivalent emissions reductions from
other sources.
    In previous memoranda, the EPA provided guidance to states on
removing Stage II at refueling facilities dedicated to certain segments
of the motor vehicle fleet (e.g., new automobile assembly plants,
rental car facilities, E85 dispensing pumps, and corporate fleet
facilities). In these specific cases where all or nearly all of the
vehicles being refueled are ORVR-equipped, the EPA could conservatively
conclude that widespread use of ORVR had occurred in these fleets. We
indicated that we could approve a SIP revision removing Stage II
requirements from these facilities with a demonstration that 95 percent
of the fleet being refueled is equipped with ORVR.\15\ This guidance
was based on the EPA's assessment that removing Stage II controls at
facilities meeting this criterion would not result in a significant
increase in VOC emissions in the nonattainment area and thus would
likely satisfy the conditions of CAA section 110(l). The EPA continues
to believe this is sound guidance in areas where Stage II is currently
being implemented, and is unaffected by the national widespread use
determination proposed in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in Situations where
Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery is
Demonstrated,'' from Stephen D. Page and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, EPA,
December 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is also proposing that states may demonstrate that ORVR
widespread use has occurred in specific areas sooner than the general,
national date of June 30, 2013. States would do so by applying the same
rationale the EPA is proposing to apply to the national fleet
characteristics to area-specific motor vehicle fleet information. A
state that provides such a demonstration may request that the
Administrator establish a different effective date for waiver of the
section 182(b)(3) requirement in a specific area. If the Administrator
grants such a waiver for an area currently implementing a Stage II
program, the state may request removal of the program from the SIP
subject to the constraints of other applicable provisions of law.
    States in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) are also subject to a
separate Stage II-related requirement. Under section 184(b)(2) of the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7511c(b)(2)), all areas in the OTR, both attainment and
nonattainment areas, must implement either Stage II or measures that
achieve comparable emissions reductions. This independent requirement
is not affected by any widespread use determination or waiver of the
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement granted under section 202(a)(6).
The section 184(b)(2) Stage II-related requirement for the OTR will
continue to remain in place even after the ORVR widespread use
determination and section 182(b)(3) waiver effective date. This is
because the section 184(b)(2) requirement does not impose Stage II per
se, but rather is a requirement that OTR states achieve an amount of
emissions reductions that corresponds to the amount that Stage II would
achieve. Moreover, section 202(a)(6), in allowing for a waiver of the
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for nonattainment areas, does
not refer to the independent section 184(b)(2) requirement. Thus, all
areas in the OTR that are implementing Stage II controls under the
requirements of both section 182(b)(3) and section 184(b)(2), or under
section 184(b)(2) alone, would need to have adopted measures that
achieve emissions reductions that are at least equivalent to those
achievable by Stage II, incremental to ORVR, before the EPA could
approve a SIP revision removing Stage II controls. The EPA intends to
provide additional guidance for OTR states on how they can conduct
updated comparability analyses based on the ``Stage II Comparability
Study for the Northeast Ozone Transport Region,'' (EPA-452/R-94-011;
January 1995) for purposes of removing Stage II under section
184(b)(2).
    Before deciding to remove Stage II, state and local agencies should
also consider any transportation conformity impacts related to removing
Stage II if emissions reductions from Stage II are included in a SIP-
approved on-road motor vehicle emissions budget. States may need to
adjust conformity budgets or the components of the budget if removing
Stage II requirements after the widespread use date would alter
expected air quality benefits.
    We request comment on all aspects of our treatment of the ORVR
widespread use and section 182(b)(3) waiver issue, including any
additional information that would assist the EPA in determining when
ORVR widespread use will occur.

IV. Estimated Cost Savings

    The EPA has conducted an initial assessment of the costs and
savings to gasoline dispensing facility owners related to this proposed
action. A report titled, ``Draft Regulatory Support Document,
Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery, Financial Benefits and
Costs,'' is available in the public docket for this action. The report
examines the initial costs and savings to facility owners incurred in
the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems, as well as
changes in recurring costs associated with above ground hardware
maintenance, operations, and administrative tasks. The EPA estimates
cost savings of about $3,277 per year for a typical gasoline dispensing
facility, and an annual nationwide savings of $88 million if Stage II
is phased out of the approximately 27,000 dispensing facilities outside
of California that are required to have Stage II vapor recovery systems
under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA. The EPA is also taking comment on
this analysis and the implications to the Stage II waiver.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of these proposed regulations
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201;) (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of these proposed
regulations on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities. Rather, it provides criteria for reducing existing regulatory
requirements on entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of these
proposed regulations on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed
action addresses the removal of a requirement regarding gasoline vapor
recovery equipment, but does not impose any obligations to remove these
programs.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any new
mandates on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between
the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits
comments on this proposed rule from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. It does not impose additional costs on
gasoline distribution, but rather promises to lower cost for gasoline
vapor control by facilitating removal of redundant controls.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d), (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
the EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action proposes to waive the requirement for states
to adopt Stage II programs, based on a determination of widespread use
of ORVR. The EPA believes that by the date specified in the proposed
rule, the amount of control that ORVR alone will achieve will be
equivalent to the amount of control Stage II alone would achieve.

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(K) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the
Administrator determines that this action is subject to the provisions
of section 307(d). Section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of
section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine.''

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6) of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3)
and 42 U.S.C.7521(a)(6)). This notice is also subject to section 307(d)
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: July 8, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--[Amended]

    2. Section 51.126 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  51.126  Determination of widespread use of ORVR and waiver of CAA
section 182(b)(3) Stage II gasoline vapor recovery requirements.

    (a) Pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator has determined that, effective June 30, 2013, onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are in widespread use in the
motor vehicle fleet within the United States.
    (b) Effective June 30, 2013, the Administrator waives the
requirement of Clean Air Act section 182(b)(3) for Stage II vapor
recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification. States must submit and receive the EPA approval of a
revision to their State Implementation Plans before removing Stage II
requirements that are contained therein.
    (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, States
may submit to the EPA demonstrations that ORVR systems are in
widespread use for areas within their borders as of a date earlier than
June 30, 2013, and may request an earlier date for revision or waiver
of the Clean Air Act section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement based on
such a demonstration. The Administrator may act on such requests by
rule under Clean Air Act section 202(a)(6).

[FR Doc. 2011-17888 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35419-35421]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12878]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32127; 812-14399]

Ares Capital Corporation, et al.; Notice of Application

May 26, 2016.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act.

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

    Applicants: Ares Capital Corporation (the ``Company''), Ares
Capital

Management LLC (the ``Adviser''), Ares Venture Finance GP LLC (the
``General Partner''), and Ares Venture Finance, L.P. (``Ares SBIC'').

SUMMARY: Summary of the Application: The Company requests an order to
permit it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 12, 2014,
and amended on May 11, 2015, and May 11, 2016.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief 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 June 20, 2016, 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: Kipp deVeer, Chief
Executive Officer, and Joshua M. Bloomstein, General Counsel, Ares
Capital Corporation, 245 Park Avenue, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kieran G. Brown, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6773, or James M. Curtis, 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 Web site 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>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company, a Maryland corporation, is an externally managed,
non-diversified, closed-end management investment company that has
elected to be regulated as a business development company (``BDC'')
under the Act.\1\ The Company's investment objective is to generate
both current income and capital appreciation through debt and equity
investments. The Adviser, a Delaware limited liability company, is the
investment adviser to the Company. The Adviser is registered under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) defines a BDC to be any closed-end
investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in section 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ares SBIC, a Delaware limited partnership, received approval for
a license from the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') to operate
as a small business investment company (``SBIC'') under the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (``SBIA''). Ares SBIC is excluded from
the definition of investment company by section 3(c)(7) of the Act. The
General Partner is the sole general partner of Ares SBIC and the
Company is the sole member of the General Partner. The Company is the
sole limited partner of Ares SBIC. The Company, directly or indirectly
through the General Partner, wholly owns Ares SBIC.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. The Company requests an exemption pursuant to section 6(c) of
the Act from the provisions of sections 18(a) and 61(a) of the Act to
permit it to adhere to a modified asset coverage requirement with
respect to any direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company that is licensed by the SBA to operate under the SBIA as an
SBIC and relies on section 3(c)(7) for an exemption from the definition
of ``investment company'' under the Act (each, an ``SBIC
Subsidiary'').\2\ Applicants state that companies operating under the
SBIA, such as the SBIC Subsidiary, are subject to the SBA's substantial
regulation of permissible leverage in their capital structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All existing entities that currently intend to rely on the
order are named as applicants. Any other existing or future entity
that may rely on the order in the future will comply with the terms
and condition of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 18(a) of the Act prohibits a registered closed-end
investment company from issuing any class of senior security or selling
any such security of which it is the issuer unless the company complies
with the asset coverage requirements set forth in that section. Section
61(a) of the Act makes section 18 applicable to BDCs, with certain
modifications. Section 18(k) exempts an investment company operating as
an SBIC from the asset coverage requirements for senior securities
representing indebtedness that are contained in section 18(a)(1)(A) and
(B).
    3. Applicants state that the Company may be required to comply with
the asset coverage requirements of section 18(a) (as modified by
section 61(a)) on a consolidated basis because the Company may be
deemed to be an indirect issuer of any class of senior security issued
by Ares SBIC or another SBIC Subsidiary. Applicants state that applying
section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)) on a consolidated basis
generally would require that the Company treat as its own all assets
and any liabilities held directly either by itself, by Ares SBIC, or by
another SBIC Subsidiary. Accordingly, the Company requests an order
under section 6(c) of the Act exempting the Company from the provisions
of section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)), such that senior
securities issued by each SBIC Subsidiary that would be excluded from
its individual asset coverage ratio by section 18(k) if it were itself
a BDC would also be excluded from the Company's consolidated asset
coverage ratio.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act, in relevant part, permits the
Commission to exempt any transaction or class of transactions from any
provision of the Act if and to the extent that such exemption is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the
protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy
and provisions of the Act. Applicants state that the requested relief
satisfies the section 6(c) standard. Applicants contend that, because
the SBIC Subsidiary would be entitled to rely on section 18(k) if it
were a BDC, there is no policy reason to deny the benefit of that
exemption to the Company.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition.
    The Company will not itself issue or sell any senior security and
the Company will not cause or permit Ares SBIC or any other SBIC
Subsidiary to issue or sell any senior security of which the Company,
Ares SBIC or any other SBIC Subsidiary is the issuer except to the
extent permitted by section 18 (as modified for BDCs by section 61(a));
provided that, immediately after the issuance or sale of any such
senior security by any of the Company, Ares SBIC or any other SBIC
Subsidiary, the Company, individually and on a consolidated basis,
shall have

the asset coverage required by section 18(a) (as modified by section
61(a)). In determining whether the Company, Ares SBIC and any other
SBIC Subsidiary on a consolidated basis have the asset coverage
required by section 18(a) (as modified by section 61(a)), any senior
securities representing indebtedness of Ares SBIC or another SBIC
Subsidiary if that SBIC Subsidiary has issued indebtedness that is held
or guaranteed by the SBA shall not be considered senior securities and,
for purposes of the definition of ``asset coverage'' in section 18(h),
shall be treated as indebtedness not represented by senior securities.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12878 Filed 6-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING March 14  15, 2006 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2006 0035 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 Telephone: ( 703) 684 7200 EVENT MIR604 MODIFIED Cry3A PROTEIN Bt CORN  PLANT INCORPORATED PROTECTANT FIFRA SAP Session Chair Kenneth M. Portier, Ph. D. Program Director, Statistics, American Cancer Society Statistics & Evaluation Center National Home Office 1599 Clifton Road, NE, Room 5.406 Atlanta, GA 32329 4251 Designated Federal Official Joseph E. Bailey FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination & Policy U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 2045, Fax: 202 564 8382, bailey. joseph@ epa. gov FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members Stuart Handwerger, M. D. Professor of Pediatrics and of Cell Biology University of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center 3333 Burnet Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45229 3039 Steven G. Heeringa, Ph. D. Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design Institute for Social Research University of Michigan P. O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1248 FQPA Science Review Board Members Amal Halim Assa'ad, M. D. Professor of Clinical Pediatrics University of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center 3333 Burnet Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45229 3039 George P. Cobb, Ph. D. Associate Professor, Environmental Toxicology Texas Tech University P. O. Box 41163 Lubbock, TX 79409 Brian Federici, Ph. D. Professor, Entomology and Interdepartmental Graduate Programs in Genetics and Microbiology University of California 900 University Ave Riverside, CA 92521 Steven Gendel, Ph. D. Branch Chief, Food and Drug Administration National Center for Food Safety and Technology 6502 South Archer Road Summit Argo, IL 60501 Louis B. Hersh, Ph. D. George Schwert Professor and Chair Department of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry College of Medicine University of Kentucky, MS607 Lexington, KY 40536 0298 George Barrie Kitto, Ph. D. Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry The University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station, A5300 Austin, TX 78712 Sean Richards, Ph. D. UC Foundation Associate Professor Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga 615 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, TN 37403 2598 Shridhar K. Sathe, Ph. D. D. K. Salunkhe Professor of Food Science Distinguished Teaching Professor Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences Florida State University 402 Sandels Building Tallahassee, FL 32306 1493 John Schneider, Ph. D. Professor/ Research Entomologist Department of Entomology & Plant Pathology Mississippi State University Mississippi State, MS 39762 Geoffrey I. Scott, Ph. D. Director, Center for Coastal Environmental Health & Biomolecular Research at Charleston U. S. Department of Commerce NOAA, National Ocean Service 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, SC 29412 9110 Janice Thies, Ph. D. Associate Professor Department of Crop and Soil Science Cornell University 722 Bradfield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Mark A. Weaver, Ph. D. Plant Pathologist South Weed Science Research Unit Agricultural Research Center, USDA 59 Lee Road Stoneville, MS 38776 Mark Whalon, Ph. D. Professor, Center for Integrated Plant Systems Michigan State University 107 Center for Integrated Plant Systems East Lansing, MI 48823 1311


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 31324]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2017-N-0809 and FDA-2018-N-4609]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug Administration
Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to award priority
review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined
that KANUMA (sebelipase alfa), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals
Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Althea Cuff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-
796-9856, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that KANUMA
(sebelipase alfa), manufactured by Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc., meets
the criteria for a priority review voucher. KANUMA (sebelipase alfa),
is indicated for the treatment of patients with a diagnosis of
Lysosomal Acid Lipase deficiency.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about KANUMA (sebelipase alfa), go to the ``[email protected]''
website at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-13944 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P