[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54384-54385]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23507]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84471; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) To Modify the
Formula for Establishing the Official Closing Price for a Derivative
Securities Product When There Is No Closing Auction or if the Closing
Auction Is Less Than One Round Lot, by Excluding the NBBO Midpoint if
the Midpoint Multiplied by 10% Is Less Than the NBBO Spread or if the
NBBO Is Crossed

October 23, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On August 29, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) to exclude from the time-weighted average
price (``TWAP'') calculation, for purpose of determining the Official
Closing Price \3\ for an Exchange-listed security that is a Derivative
Securities Product \4\ if the Exchange does not conduct a Closing
Auction \5\ or if a Closing Auction trade is less than a round lot, a
midpoint that is based on a National Best Bid and Offer (``NBBO'') that
may not be reflective of the security's true and current value. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 17, 2018.\6\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) for a definition of Official
Closing Price.
    \4\ With respect to equities traded on the Exchange, the term
``Derivative Securities Product'' means a security that meets the
definition of ``derivative securities product'' in Rule 19b-4(e)
under the Act. See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(k). For purposes of Rule 19b-
4(e), a ``derivative securities product'' means any type of option,
warrant, hybrid securities product or any other security, other than
a single equity option or a security futures product, whose value is
based, in whole or in part, upon the performance of, or interest,
in, an underlying instrument. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \5\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E(d) regarding the operation of
Closing Auctions on the Exchange.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84079 (September 11,
2018), 83 FR 46981 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    On March 20, 2018, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposal
(``OCP Filing'') to amend NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) to provide for how the
Official Closing Price is determined for an Exchange-listed security
that is a Derivative Securities Product if the Exchange does not
conduct a Closing Auction or if a Closing Auction trade is less than a
round lot.\7\ As described in the Notice, the Exchange had sought a
method for deriving the Official Closing Price that would be more
indicative of the actual value of the securities, in particular for
listed securities that are thinly traded or generally illiquid.\8\
Prior to approval of the OCP Filing, the Official Closing Price for
such securities would have been based on a last-sale trade that may
have been hours, days, or even months old and therefore not necessarily
indicative of their true and current value. With approval of the OCP
Filing, the Exchange adopted a revised calculation to derive the value
for securities that have a potentially stale last-price, depending on
when the last consolidated last-sale eligible trade occurred.
Specifically, for such securities, the Official Closing Price would be
derived by adding a percentage of the TWAP of the NBBO midpoint
measured over the last five minutes before the end of Core Trading
Hours and a percentage of the last consolidated last-sale eligible
trade before the end of Core Trading Hours on that trading day.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82907 (March 20,
2018), 83 FR 12980 (March 26, 2018) (order approving SR-NYSEArca-
2018-08).
    \8\ See Notice, supra, note 6, at 46981.
    \9\ See NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll)(1)(B)(i)-(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to further amend NYSE Arca Rule
1.1(ll)(1)(B) to exclude from the TWAP calculation a midpoint that is
based on an NBBO that the Exchange believes is too wide and therefore
not reflective of the security's true and current value.\10\
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to exclude an NBBO midpoint from
the calculation of the Official Closing Price if that midpoint, when
multiplied by ten percent (10%), is less than the spread of that
NBBO.\11\ The Exchange also would exclude a crossed NBBO from the
calculation.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Notice, supra, note 6, at 46981.
    \11\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll)(1)(B).
    \12\ See id. For an example of this proposed new process, see
Notice, supra, note 6, at 46981-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that its proposed change to the Official Closing
Price calculation in this scenario is similar to how it considers an
``Auction NBBO,'' which is used as a basis for determining the Auction
Reference Price for the Core Open Auction.\13\ To qualify as an Auction
NBBO for the Core Open Auction, there must be both a bid and an offer
that is not zero, the NBBO cannot be crossed, and the midpoint of the
NBBO when multiplied by a designated percentage cannot be greater than
or equal to the spread of the NBBO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The term ``Auction NBBO'' means an NBBO that is used for
purposes of pricing an auction. See NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E(a)(5). The
Exchange also uses the Auction NBBO for determining the Indicative
Match Price in specified situations for the Closing Auction. See
NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E(a)(8)(C).
    \14\ See NYSE Arca Rule 7.35-E(a)(5). The Exchange notes that,
unlike its current proposal to codify a designated percentage of ten
percent (10%) to be used in the TWAP calculation for the Official
Closing Price, the designated percentage used for determining the
Auction NBBO for the Core Open Auction is determined by the Exchange
upon prior notice to ETP Holders. See Notice, supra, note 6, at
46982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive clarifying change to
NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll) to specify that the process under NYSE Arca Rule
1.1(ll)(1)(D) would be utilized if the Official Closing Price cannot be
determined under NYSE Arca Rule1.1(ll)(1)(A), (B), or (C).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See proposed NYSE Arca Rule 1.1(ll)(1)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange anticipates the implementation date for the proposed
rule change will be in the first quarter of 2019, and the Exchange will
announce such implementation date by Trader Update.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra, note 6, at 46982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\17\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be

designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
transactions in securities, 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, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\19\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would set forth an additional procedure governing how
the Exchange would determine the Official Closing Price in Exchange-
listed securities that are Derivative Securities Products when the
Exchange does not conduct a Closing Auction or if a Closing Auction
trade is less than a round lot. The Commission notes that the primary
listing market's closing price for a security is relied upon by market
participants for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to,
calculation of index values, calculation of the net asset value of
mutual funds and exchange-traded products, the price of derivatives
that are based on the security, and certain types of trading benchmarks
such as volume weighted average price strategies. As the Exchange
notes, its current calculation for the Official Closing Price in such a
scenario is designed to utilize more recent and reliable market
information to provide a closing price that more accurately reflects
the true and current value of a security that may be thinly traded or
generally illiquid and when the Official Closing Price for such
security may otherwise be based on a potentially stale last-sale
trade.\20\ The Exchange now proposes to exclude from the TWAP
calculation used under this process a midpoint that is based on an NBBO
that the Exchange believes is too wide and therefore not reflective of
the security's true and current value.\21\ The Commission believes that
this exclusion, utilizing a specified percentage of the midpoint value,
is a reasonable approach to avoid utilizing market information in the
TWAP calculation that may provide less accurate information about the
true value of a security. The Commission therefore believes that the
Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to achieve the Act's
objectives to protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, supra note 6, at 46981.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\22\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2018-63) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-23507 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35807-35810]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-81]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0639; FRL-8829-3]

2-(Hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (Tris Nitro); Notice of
Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Amend Registrations to Terminate
Certain Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to voluntarily amend
its 2(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) product
registrations to terminate or delete one or more uses. The request
would delete 2(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) use
in or on metalworking fluids; latex paints; resin/latex/polymer
emulsions; specialty industrial products; livestock and poultry
premises; paints, emulsions and thickener solutions; use as a
preservative for packaged emulsions, solutions, or suspensions such as
detergents and polishes containing water; use in pulp and paper-mill
process water systems. The request would not terminate the last
2(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) products
registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this
request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless
the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that
would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant
withdraws its request. If this request is granted, any sale,
distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be
permitted after the uses are deleted only if such sale, distribution,
or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0639, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0639. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line 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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Von-Dem Hagen, Antimicrobials
Division (7501P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. 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.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
     iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
     viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel and/or Amend
Registrations to Delete Uses

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from registrant
The Dow Chemical Company to delete certain uses of 2(hydroxymethyl)-2-
nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) product registrations. In letters
dated November 19, 2009, The Dow Chemical Company requested EPA to
amend to delete certain uses of pesticide product registrations
identified in Table 1 of Unit III. Specifically, in response to the 2-
(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) (Case 3149)
Preliminary Work Plan, dated September 16, 2009, the registrant
submitted amendments requesting the deletion of the following the 2-
(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) end-uses from
their product labels: use in metalworking fluids; latex paints; resin/
latex/polymer emulsions; specialty industrial products; livestock and
poultry premises; paints, emulsions and thickener solutions; as a
preservative for packaged emulsions, solutions or suspensions, such as
detergents and polishes containing water; and in pulp and paper-mill
process water systems. Action on the registrants request to delete
these uses will terminate the last 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-
propanediol (tris nitro) pesticide products registered in the United
States for use in metalworking fluids; latex paints; resin/latex/
polymer emulsions; specialty industrial products; paints, emulsions and
thickener solutions; materials preservative for packaged emulsions,
solutions or suspensions, such as detergents and polishes containing
water; and in pulp and paper-mill process water systems. Action on the
registrant request will not

terminate the last 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris
nitro) pesticide product registered in the United States for livestock
and poultry premises.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to delete certain uses of 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
(tris nitro) product registrations. The affected products and the
registrants making the requests are identified in Tables 1 and 2 of
this unit.
    Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant or if the Agency
determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further
review of this request, EPA intends to issue an order amending the
affected registrations.

 Table 1. -- 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro) Product Registrations with Pending Requests
                                                  for Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Registration Number                 Product Name                Company            Uses to be Deleted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-657                                Tris Nitro\TM\ Solid     The Dow Chemical         Use in metalworking
                                        Industrial               Company                  fluids; Latex paints;
                                        Bacteriostat                                      Resin/latex/polymer
                                                                                emulsions; Specialty
                                                                                industrial products;
                                                                                Livestock and Poultry
                                                                                Premises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-658                                Tris Nitro\TM\ Brand of  The Dow Chemical         Use in metalworking
                                        50% (Aqueous) For        Company                  fluids; Latex paints;
                                        Formulating Use                                   Resin/latex/polymer
                                                                                emulsions; Specialty
                                                                                industrial products;
                                                                                Livestock and poultry
                                                                                premises.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-663                                Tris Nitro\TM\ Brand of  The Dow Chemical         Use in paints,
                                        50% Aqueous Tris         Company                  emulsions and
                                        (hydroxymethyl)                                   thickener solutions;
                                        nitromethane                                      Use in metalworking
                                                                                fluids; Use as a
                                                                                preservative for
                                                                                packaged emulsions,
                                                                                solutions, or
                                                                                suspensions, such as
                                                                                detergents and
                                                                                polishes containing
                                                                                water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-668                                Tris Nitro\TM\ Brand of  The Dow Chemical         Use in metalworking
                                        25% Aqueous Tris         Company                  fluids; Use as a
                                        (hydroxymethyl)                                   preservative for
                                        nitromethane                                      packaged emulsions,
                                                                                solutions, or
                                                                                suspensions, such as
                                                                                detergents and
                                                                                polishes containing
                                                                                water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
464-679                                Tris Nitro\TM\ Brand     The Dow Chemical         Use in paints,
                                                                 Company                  emulsions, and
                                                                                thickener solutions;
                                                                                Use in metalworking
                                                                                fluids; Use as a
                                                                                preservative for
                                                                                packaged emulsions,
                                                                                solutions, or
                                                                                suspensions, such as
                                                                                detergents and
                                                                                polishes containing
                                                                                water; Use in pulp and
                                                                                papermill process
                                                                                water systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the products listed in Table 1 of this unit, in
sequence by EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first
part of the EPA registration numbers of the products listed in Table 1
of this unit.

     Table 2.--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation and/or
                               Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA Company Number                Company Name and Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
464.......................................  The Dow Chemical Company
                                             1803 Building Midland, MI
                                             48674
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register.
     Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a
request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public
comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use
termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA
provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary
cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before
granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The 2-(hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol (tris nitro)
registrant has requested that EPA waive the 180-day comment period.
Accordingly, EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on the proposed
requests.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for product
cancellation or use deletion should submit the withdrawal

in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
If the products(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action,
the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any
earlier cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
action. If the request for amendments to delete use is granted, the
Agency intends to publish the cancellation order in the Federal
Register.
     In any order issued in response to this request for an amendment
to delete uses, EPA proposes to include the following provisions for
the treatment of any existing stocks of the products listed in Table 1
of Unit III.
     For voluntary product cancellations, registrants will be permitted
to sell and distribute existing stocks of voluntarily canceled products
for 1 year after the effective date of the cancellation, which will be
the date of publication of the cancellation order in the Federal
Register. Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or
distributing the products identified in Table 1 of Unit III., except
for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or for proper disposal.
     Once EPA has approved product labels reflecting the requested
amendments to delete uses, registrants will be permitted to sell or
distribute products under the previously approved labeling for a period
of 18 months after the date of Federal Register publication of the
cancellation order, unless other restrictions have been imposed.
Thereafter, registrants will be prohibited from selling or distributing
the products whose labels include the deleted uses identified in Table
1 of Unit III., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17 or
for proper disposal.
    Persons other than the registrant may sell, distribute, or use
existing stocks of products whose labels include the deleted uses until
supplies are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use
is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or
that accompanied, the deleted uses.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests, Antimicrobials.

    Dated: June 7, 2010.
Joan Harrigan-Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 2010-15209 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4103]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC11-25-000]

ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Filing

January 13, 2011.
    Take notice that on December 30, 2010, ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC
submitted a request for a waiver of the reporting requirement to file
the FERC Form 2 for 2010.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: February 14, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1282 Filed 1-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33950-33953]
[FR Doc No: E9-16642]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0024; FRL-8930-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District portion of the California State Implementation Plan. These
revisions concern a local fee rule that applies to major sources of
volatile organic compound and nitrogen oxide emissions within the San
Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area. We are approving a local rule
that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 13, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0024, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rule did the State Submit?
    B. What is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?
    C. Why was this Rule Submitted?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
    B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) adopted Rule 3170, Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment
Fee, on May 16, 2002. This rule was submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on August 6, 2002, for incorporation into the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). On August 30, 2002, this
rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 requires major stationary sources of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the
San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area to pay a fee to the
SJVUAPCD if the area fails to attain the 1-hour national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone by its Federally established
attainment year. The fee must be paid beginning in the second year
after the attainment year, and in each calendar year thereafter, until
the area is redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), and 185 of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), States are required to adopt an
excess emissions fee regulation for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as severe or extreme. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS classification
for the San Joaquin Valley area is extreme (see 69 FR 20550, April 16,
2004). The fee regulation specified by the Act requires major
stationary sources of VOCs in the nonattainment area to pay a fee to
the State if the area fails to attain the standard by the attainment
date set forth in the Act. Section 182(f) of the Act requires States to
apply the same requirements to major stationary sources of
NOX as are applied to major stationary sources of VOCs.
Emissions of VOCs and NOX play a role in producing ground-
level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment.
SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 applies to major sources of both NOX and
VOCs. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). Due to the limited national guidance available relevant to these
sorts of nonattainment fee rules, Rule 3170 was primarily evaluated for
compliance with the requirements in CAA section 185. The rule was also
evaluated for consistency with the CAA and EPA's general SIP policies,
as well as a March 21, 2008, memorandum from William Harnett, Director
of the Air Quality Policy Division, to the Regional Air Division
Directors, entitled, ``Guidance on Establishing Emissions Baselines
under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and Extreme
Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by
their Attainment Date.'' Guidance and policy documents that we use to
help evaluate specific enforceability requirements typically include
the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    Rule 3170 improves the SIP by establishing an excess emissions fee
regulation as required by the CAA. The rule is largely consistent with
the CAA, as well as relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet
the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in
the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    The following provisions conflict with section 185 of the Act and
prevent full approval of the SIP revision:
    Section 4.2 exempts units that begin operation after the attainment
year. CAA Section 185 does not provide for such an exemption, so this
exemption does not fully comply with the CAA.
    Section 4.3 exempts any ``clean emission unit'' from the
requirements of the rule. Section 3.6 defines a clean emission unit as
a unit that is equipped with an emissions control technology that
either has a minimum 95% control efficiency (or 85% for lean-burn
internal combustion engines), or meets the requirements for achieved-
in-practice Best Achievable Control Technology as accepted by the APCO
during the 5 years immediately prior to the end of the attainment year.
The District's staff report for Rule 3170 states that the exemption is
intended to address ``the difficulty of reducing emissions from units
with recently installed BACT.'' Although EPA understands the District's
intended purpose for including the exemption, the exemption does not
comply with CAA section 185.
    Section 3.2.1 defines the baseline period as two consecutive years
consisting of the attainment year and the year immediately prior to the
attainment year. CAA Section 185(b)(2) provides the option for
calculating baseline emissions over a period of more than one calendar
year if a

source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly from year to year. Since Section 3.2.2 allows an
alternative baseline, then Section 3.2.1 should describe the normal
baseline calculation which should be based only on the attainment year
emissions.
    Section 3.2.2 allows averaging over 2-5 years to establish baseline
emissions. CAA Section 185(b)(2) states that EPA may issue guidance
authorizing such an alternative method of calculating baseline
emissions if a source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise
vary significantly from year to year. EPA issued guidance on
alternative methods for calculating baseline emissions in the form of
the memorandum from William Harnett, mentioned above. The averaging
period allowed in Section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 appears consistent with
the March 21, 2008, guidance. However, the language in Section 3.2.2
allows such averaging ``if those years are determined by the APCO as
more representative of normal source operation.'' This language is
considered less stringent than the CAA criteria. The rule should be
amended to specify use of the expanded averaging period only if a
source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly from year to year.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval
is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is
finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed
according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the
Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).
Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and
EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from
enforcing it.
    However, the limited approval of Rule 3170 does not override
specific CAA mandates. If the area fails to attain by its 2010
attainment date, fees will accrue beginning in 2011 for emissions above
80% of source baselines for clean units and new units which are
exempted from fee collection under the State rule. The State must adopt
and submit a rule to collect fees for 2011 and future years from those
units or, consistent with the Administrator's obligation under Sec.
185(d), EPA will collect those fees. In addition, all sources are
liable for fees calculated in accordance with the baseline definition
in Sec.  185(b)(2) and EPA guidance issued pursuant to that provision.
The State must adopt and submit a rule that ensures fees are collected
for 2011 and all future applicable years based on the statutory
baseline requirement. If the State fails to do so, EPA will collect any
additional fees owed pursuant to a Federal program under Sec.  185(d).
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

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).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or Tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from Tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-16642 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69878-69879]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1006]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Neuse River, New Bern, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Neuse River Railroad Bridge across Neuse River, mile 34.2, at New Bern,
NC. This closure is necessary to facilitate mechanical repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on November 16, 2010
through 8 a.m. on November 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1006 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1006 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth
Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-

mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Norfolk Southern Railway (NSR) owns and
operates the swing span of the Neuse River Railroad Bridge across Neuse
River in New Bern NC. The bridge has zero vertical clearance in the
closed position to vessels, above mean high water. The current
operating regulations are outlined at 33 CFR 117.5, which requires the
bridge to open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a
request to open is given.
    NSR has requested a temporary deviation to the existing regulations
for the Neuse River Railroad Bridge to facilitate mechanical repairs.
The repairs consist of removing, refurbishing, and replacing of drive
shaft bearings, wedge blocks, rail levers, and turnbuckles.
    Under this deviation, the swing span of the drawbridge will be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. on November
16, 2010, through 8 a.m. on November 18, 2010.
    According to information furnished by NSR, the swing span normally
remains open to vessels, closing to permit rail traffic usually four
times in a 24-hour period and these closures generally occur between 11
p.m. and 10 a.m. In 2009, between 10 a.m. and 11 p.m., vessel traffic
passing at the swing span typically consisted of four yachts.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the closure period so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Neuse River and the drawbridge will be unable to open in the
event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulation is authorized
under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 2, 2010.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-28736 Filed 11-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      REGION IX AIR AND RADIATION DIVISION

                          Technical Support Document
                                      for
                            the EPA's Rulemaking
                                    for the
                     California State Implementation Plan

                   San Diego Air Pollution Control District
"2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, October 2020"

               Negative Declarations for CTG Source Categories:
Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products, Fiberglass Boat Materials Manufacturing, Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Tables 3-6.

Prepared by: Nancy Levin, Rules Office, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX

                                 February 2022
DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION

Agency
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)
Previous action
2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for San
Diego County (``2016 RACT SIP'')

Adopted  -  12/14/2016
Submitted  -  4/12/2017

Final Action: Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval
85 FR 77996 (December 3, 2020)

Subject of this Technical Support Document (TSD)
"2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County, October 2020  -  Negative Declarations for CTG Source Categories, 2008 and 2015 ozone standards:

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029 1978/12

Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, EPA - 453/R - 08 - 004 2008/09

Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA 453/R-08-003 2008/09, Tables 3-6

Adopted  -  10/14/2020
Submitted  -  12/29/2020

Completeness Finding
Complete by operation of law
Docket number; SAN
EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0253; SAN 9611

1. BACKGROUND

Reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements
The Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 172(c)(1) and 182 require nonattainment ozone areas classified as "Moderate" or above to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT). CAA section 182 specifies that RACT is required for volatile organic compound (VOC) sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document and for all non-CTG major stationary sources of VOC or oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The SDAPCD falls under this requirement as it regulates an ozone nonattainment area (NAA) classified as "Severe" for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (see 40 CFR 81.305). On December 29, 2020, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), on behalf of SDAPCD, submitted the "2020 Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone in San Diego County, October 2020" ("2020 RACT SIP"). This document, which addresses the Severe area RACT SIP requirements for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, includes negative declarations for the three CTG categories that are the subject of this TSD.

Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states, in part, that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG. Id. at 12278. It also provides that states must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005).

Public Notice and Hearing Requirements
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 require states to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for a public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal (see CAA section 110(k)(2)).

The District's SIP submittal includes documentation of a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment on the SIP submittal posted on September 14, 2020 in The Daily Transcript and Daily Journal. The SIP submittal also contains documentation of the October 14, 2020 public hearing on the SIP submittal. The submittal contains the SDAPCD Board resolution adopting the SIP on October 14, 2020. The State submitted the RACT SIP revisions on December 29, 2020, and, with one exception, they became complete by operation of law on June 29, 2021.

2. SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

In this action, the EPA is evaluating the submitted negative declarations for CTG source categories subject to this TSD to remedy deficiencies that the EPA identified in the District's 2016 RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and to address the same CTG elements for 2015 ozone NAAQS. We will take separate action on the remaining RACT SIP elements addressed in the 2020 RACT SIP.

The following documents were used to support our review:
 "Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements"; 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
 "State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"; 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
 "State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990"; 57 FR 55620 (November 25, 1992) ("the NOX Supplement").
 Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, dated May 18, 2006, "RACT Qs & As  -  Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers."
 Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
 Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing the EPA's current CTGs, Alternative Control Techniques (ACTs), and other documents which may help to establish RACT.
 EPA's CTGs and ACTs: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/control-techniques-guidelines-and-alternative-control-techniques.
 CARB's facility emissions inventory database ("Facility Search Engine"): http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php.
 	"Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," ("the Bluebook") EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988, Revised January 11, 1990:https://archive.epa.gov/ttn/ozone/web/pdf/voc_bluebook.pdf.
 	"Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies," ("the Little Bluebook"), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001.

3. NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS

In lieu of adopting RACT rules, districts must adopt negative declarations for CTG source categories if there are no sources in the district covered by the CTG. The District states that "Attachment B  -  CTG/ACT Categories with No Subject District Sources ("Negative Declaration" or ND)" identifies all CTGs for which there are no applicable sources in San Diego County. The District certifies a negative declaration for each CTG listed in Attachment B, stating the following:

      "Searches were performed within the District's permits and emission inventory databases, as well as the internet and yellow pages, to confirm there were no source types in San Diego County that would be subject to the CTGs. District staff also consulted with knowledgeable District inspectors and permit engineers to confirm there were no sources in any CTG category for which a Negative Declaration was claimed."

TABLE 1  -  Negative Declarations for CTG Source Categories for which SDAPCD Certifies It Has No Applicable Sources
                                      CTG
                                Source Category
                   Adopted for 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products
EPA-450/2-78-029 1978/12
("Synthetized Pharmaceutical Products CTG")
Chemical synthesis; Fermentation; Extraction; Formulation and Packaging
10/14/2020
Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials
EPA - 453/R - 08 - 004 2008/09
("Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG")

Manufacture hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass, or build molds to make fiberglass boat hulls or decks
10/14/2020
Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings
EPA 453/R-08-003 2008/09

("Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG")
Table 3 - Plastic Parts and Products
10/14/2020

Table 4  -  Automotive/Transportation and Business Machine Plastic Parts
10/14/2020

Table 5  -  Pleasure Craft Surface Coating
10/14/2020

Table 6 - Motor Vehicle Materials
10/14/2020

4. EPA EVALUATION: The EPA reviewed the CTGs listed for negative declarations in Table 1 and compared them against sources listed in CARB's Facility Search Engine. We did not identify any sources that would appear to be subject to the listed CTGs. Based on our review, we conclude that the negative declarations in the 2020 RACT SIP's "TABLE 2  -  Negative Declarations for CTG Source Categories for which SDAPCD Certifies It Has No Applicable Sources" appear to be appropriate. Our analysis is as follows:

Synthetized Pharmaceutical Products CTG: The District states that there are no sources in the nonattainment area with emissions greater than the CTG applicability threshold of 15 pounds per day (lb/day). Based on our discussions with the District, search of databases, and further analysis, we did not find facilities that met or exceeded the CTG threshold.

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG: The District states that there are no sources in the nonattainment area with emissions exceeding CTG applicability threshold of 15 lb/day or 2.7 tons per year (tpy), and that emissions from the largest fiberglass boat manufacturing operations are 0.5 tpy.  We checked the CARB Facility Search Engine for SIC codes related to fiberglass boat manufacturing and found that Driscoll Custom Boats has emitted 2.5 tpy VOC since 2014 or 13.7 lb/day, which is close to but less than the CTG threshold. The District explained that Driscoll Custom Boats performs other non-fiberglass boat operations, and that fiberglass boat manufacturing accounts for 0.5 tpy VOC, which is well below the CTG threshold.

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts, Tables 3-6: The District determined that no sources applicable to Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 have emissions greater than the CTG applicability threshold of 15 lb of VOC per day. The 2020 RACT SIP states that "Since 2010, six of the eight facilities [subject to Table 5] have consistently demonstrated total coating and cleaning material use of less than five pounds of VOC per day before controls. The remaining two facilities respectively have emitted 13.2 and 12.1 pounds of VOC per day before controls, based on recent inventory data [and] ... have each emitted no more than 13.2 pounds of VOC per day since 2007, establishing a pattern of operational consistency." Further, the District states that it "is not aware of any facility that is close to meeting the 15 lb per day CTG Threshold for MMPP Tables 3, 4, and 6."

5. EPA ACTION: We propose to approve the following negative declarations for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards: Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products CTG, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts CTG, Tables 3-6. We also propose to determine that the submitted negative declarations cure the deficiencies identified in our partial disapproval of SCAPCD's 2016 RACT SIP with respect to the CTGs for Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts, Tables 3-6.

6. REFERENCES

    Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products EPA-450/2-78-029 1978/12.
    Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, EPA - 453/R - 08 - 004 2008/09.
    Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, EPA 453/R-08-003 2008/09, Tables 3-6.
    2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration for San Diego County (``2016 RACT SIP''); 85 FR 77996 (December 3, 2020).


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71711-71712]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-30]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 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, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On August
24, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public
comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
December 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find the particular ICR by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On August 24, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 52190. FRA
received no comments related to the proposed collection of information.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information 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 to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Track Safety Standards; Concrete Crossties.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0592.
    Abstract: In 2011, FRA mandated specific requirements for effective
concrete crossties, for rail fastening systems connected to concrete
crossties, and for automated inspections of track constructed with
concrete crossties. FRA uses the information collected under 49 CFR
213.234 to ensure automated track inspections of track constructed with
concrete crossties are carried out as specified in the rule to
supplement visual inspections by Class I and Class II railroads,
intercity passenger railroads, and commuter railroads.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (revised estimates) of a
currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 30 railroads.

    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 2,405.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 279 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $19,888.
    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 a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

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

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-24947 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P