[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49513-49515]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20243]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65034; File No. SR-NYSE-2011-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Sections 102.01 and
103.01 of the Exchange's Listed Company Manual To Adopt Additional
Listing Requirements for Companies Applying To List After Consummation
of a ``Reverse Merger'' With a Shell Company

August 4, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 22, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Sections 102.01 and 103.01 of the
Exchange's Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to adopt additional
initial listing requirements for companies applying to list after
consummation of a ``reverse merger'' with a shell company. The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 NYSE proposes to adopt more stringent listing requirements for
operating companies that become Exchange Act reporting companies by
combining with a shell company which is an Exchange Act reporting
company. The proposed listing requirements would apply to combinations
with a shell company which is an Exchange Act reporting company,
through a reverse merger, exchange offer or otherwise (a ``reverse
merger transaction'').
    In a reverse merger transaction, an existing public shell company
merges with a private operating company in a transaction in which the
shell company is the surviving legal entity.\4\ While the public shell
company survives the merger, the shareholders of the private operating
company typically hold a large majority of the shares of the public
company after the merger and the management and board of the private
company will assume those roles in the post-merger public company. The
assets and business operations of the post-merger surviving public
company are primarily, if not solely, those of the former private
operating company. The Exchange understands that private operating
companies generally enter into reverse merger transactions to enable
the company and its shareholders to sell shares in the public equity
markets. By becoming a public reporting company via a reverse merger, a
private operating company can access the public markets quickly and
avoid the generally more expensive and lengthy process of going public
by way of an initial public offering. While the public shell company is
required to report the reverse merger in a Form 8-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), generally
there are no registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933
(the ``Securities Act'') \5\ at that point in time, as there would be
for an IPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In some cases a private company effects an exchange offer or
other transaction pursuant to which it combines with a public shell
company.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 77a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significant regulatory concerns, including accounting fraud
allegations, have arisen with respect to a number of reverse merger
companies in recent times. The Commission has taken direct action
against reverse merger companies. During 2011, the Commission has
suspended trading in the securities of a number of reverse merger
companies and has revoked the securities registration of a number of
reverse merger companies.\6\ The Commission also recently brought an
enforcement proceeding against an audit firm relating to its work for
reverse merger companies.\7\ In addition, the Commission issued a
bulletin on the risks of investing in reverse merger companies, noting
potential market and regulatory risks related to investing in reverse
merger companies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Mary L. Schapiro to Hon. Patrick T. McHenry,
dated April 27, 2011 (``Schapiro Letter''), at pages 3-4.
    \7\ See Schapiro Letter at page 4.
    \8\ See ``Investor Bulletin: Reverse Mergers'' 2011-123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these concerns, NYSE Regulation staff has been
conducting heightened, risk-informed reviews of reverse merger
companies seeking to list on the NYSE or NYSE Amex to consider factors
other than the enumerated initial listing criteria in making listing
determinations. In this regard, Section 101.00 of the Manual provides
that the Exchange has ``broad discretion regarding the listing of a
company.'' Section 101.00 provides that the Exchange may use such
discretion to ``deny listing or apply additional or more stringent
criteria based on any event, condition, or circumstance that makes the
listing of the company inadvisable or unwarranted in the opinion of the
Exchange.'' The Exchange may use this discretionary authority to
increase the stringency of its stated listing criteria but not to
decrease their stringency.
    In light of the well-documented concerns related to some reverse
merger companies as described above, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to codify in its rules specific requirements with respect
to the initial listing qualification of reverse merger companies. As
proposed, a reverse merger company would not be eligible for listing
unless the combined entity had, immediately preceding the filing of the
initial listing application:
    (1) Traded for at least one year in the U.S. over-the-counter
market, on another national securities exchange or on a regulated
foreign exchange following the consummation of the reverse merger and
(i) In the case of a domestic issuer, filed with the Commission a Form
8-K including all of the information required by Item 2.01(f) of Form
8-K, including all required audited financial statements, or (ii) in
the case of a foreign private issuer, filed the information described
in (i) above on Form 20-F;

    (2) Maintained on both an absolute and an average basis for a
sustained period a minimum stock price of at least $4; and
    (3) Timely filed with the Commission all required reports since the
consummation of the reverse merger, including the filing of at least
one annual report containing audited financial statements for a full
fiscal year commencing on a date after the date of filing with the
Commission of the filing described in (1) above.
    In addition, a reverse merger company would be required to maintain
on both an absolute and an average basis a minimum stock price of at
least $4 through listing.
    The Exchange believes that requiring a ``seasoning'' period prior
to listing for reverse merger companies should provide greater
assurance that the company's operations and financial reporting are
reliable, and will also provide time for its independent auditor to
detect any potential irregularities, as well as for the company to
identify and implement enhancements to address any internal control
weaknesses. The seasoning period will also provide time for regulatory
and market scrutiny of the company, and for any concerns that would
preclude listing eligibility to be identified.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will increase transparency to issuers and market participants with
respect to the factors considered by NYSE Regulation in assessing
reverse merger companies for listing, and generally should reduce the
risk of regulatory concerns with respect to these companies being
discovered after listing. However, the Exchange notes that, while it
believes the proposed requirements would be a meaningful additional
safeguard, it is not possible to guarantee that a reverse merger
company (or any other listed company) is not engaged in undetected
accounting fraud or subject to other concealed and undisclosed legal or
regulatory problems.
    For purposes of proposed Section 102.01F of the Manual (which will
be applicable to reverse merger companies which qualify to list under
the domestic companies criteria of Section 102.01) and proposed Section
103.01E of the Manual (which will be applicable to reverse merger
companies which qualify to list under the non-U.S. companies criteria
of Section 103.01), a ``Reverse Merger'' would mean any transaction
whereby an operating company became an Exchange Act reporting company
by combining with a shell company that was an Exchange Act reporting
company, whether through a reverse merger, exchange offer, or
otherwise. However, a Reverse Merger would not include the acquisition
of an operating company by a listed company that qualified for initial
listing under Section 102.06 of the Manual (i.e., the Exchange's
special purpose acquisition company (``SPAC'') listing standard). In
determining whether a company was a shell company, the Exchange would
consider, among other factors: Whether the company was considered a
``shell company'' as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act; what
percentage of the company's assets were active versus passive; whether
the company generated revenues, and if so, whether the revenues were
passively or actively generated; whether the company's expenses were
reasonably related to the revenues being generated; how many employees
worked in the company's revenue-generating business operations; how
long the company had been without material business operations; and
whether the company had publicly announced a plan to begin operating
activities or generate revenues, including through a near-term
acquisition or transaction.
    In order to qualify for initial listing, a company that was formed
by a Reverse Merger (a ``Reverse Merger Company'') would be required to
comply with one of the initial listing standards for operating
companies set forth in Section 102.01C or 103.01B of the Manual and the
applicable distribution, stock price and market value requirements of
Sections 102.01A and 102.01B of the Manual (in the case of companies
listing pursuant to Section 102.01) and Section 103.01A (in the case of
companies listing pursuant to Section 103.01). Proposed Sections
102.01F and 103.01E would supplement and not replace any applicable
requirements of Sections 102.01 or 102.03. However, in addition to the
otherwise applicable requirements of Sections 102.01 or 103.01, a
Reverse Merger Company would be eligible to submit an application for
initial listing only if it meets the additional criteria specified
above.
    The Exchange would have the discretion to impose more stringent
requirements than those set forth above if the Exchange believed it was
warranted in the case of a particular Reverse Merger Company based on,
among other things, an inactive trading market in the Reverse Merger
Company's securities, the existence of a low number of publicly held
shares that were not subject to transfer restrictions, if the Reverse
Merger Company had not had a Securities Act registration statement or
other filing subjected to a comprehensive review by the Commission, or
if the Reverse Merger Company had disclosed that it had material
weaknesses in its internal controls which had been identified by
management and/or the Reverse Merger Company's independent auditor and
had not yet implemented an appropriate corrective action plan.
    A Reverse Merger Company would not be subject to the requirements
of proposed Section 102.01F or proposed Section 103.01E, as applicable,
if it was listing in connection with an Initial Firm Commitment
Underwritten Public Offering (as defined in Section 102.01B \9\) where
the proceeds to the Reverse Merger Company were sufficient on a
standalone basis to generate $40,000,000 in aggregate market value of
publicly-held shares and the offering was occurring subsequent to or
concurrently with the reverse merger.\10\ In that case, the Reverse
Merger Company would only need to meet the requirements of one of the
initial listing standards in Section 102.01C or Section 103.01B, as
applicable.\11\ The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to exempt
Reverse merger Companies from the proposed rule where they are listing
in conjunction with a sizable offering, as those companies would be
subject to the same Commission review and due diligence by underwriters
as a company listing in conjunction with its IPO or any other company
listing in conjunction with an Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten
Public Offering, so it would be inequitable to

subject them to more stringent requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of Section 102.01B, a company is listing in
connection with its Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten Public
Offering if (i) Such company has a class of common stock registered
under the Exchange Act, (ii) such common stock has never been listed
on a national securities exchange in the period since the
commencement of its current registration under the Exchange Act, and
(iii) such company is listing in connection with a firm commitment
underwritten public offering that is its first firm commitment
underwritten public offering of its common stock since the
registration of its common stock under the Exchange Act.
    \10\ The prospectus and registration statement covering the
offering would thus need to relate to the combined financial
statements and operations of the Reverse Merger Company.
    \11\ The Commission notes that under NYSE's proposal a non-U.S.
Reverse Merger Company that will not be subject to the proposed
103.01E requirements because it is listing in connection with an
Initial Firm Commitment Underwritten Public Offering where the
proceeds in the offering will generate a minimum of $40,000,000 in
aggregate market value of publicly held shares would still have to
meet all the requirements in Section 103.01A of the Manual that
include a market value of publicly held shares of $100 million
worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \12\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating 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.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that, as discussed above under the
heading ``Purpose'', its purpose is to apply more stringent initial
listing requirements to a category of companies that have raised
regulatory concerns, thereby furthering the goal of protection of
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 45 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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove 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, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2011-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-38. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.

    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies
of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of NYSE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2011-38, and should be submitted on or before August 31, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20243 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38509-38515]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15465]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0785; FRL-9691-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the
South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 17, 2007. South Carolina's
December 17, 2007, SIP revision addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. Specifically, this SIP revision addresses the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing
anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
(national parks and wilderness areas) caused by emissions of air
pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area
(also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are
required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007,
SIP revision to implement the regional haze requirements for South
Carolina on the basis that this SIP revision, as a whole, strengthens
the South Carolina SIP. Additionally, EPA is rescinding the Federal
regulations previously approved into the South Carolina SIP on July 12,
1985, and November 24, 1987, and is approving the provisions in South
Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to meet the monitoring and
long-term strategy (LTS) requirements for reasonably attributable
visibility impairment (RAVI). In a separate action published on June 7,
2012, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of this same SIP revision
because of the deficiencies in the State's regional haze SIP revision
arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 30, 2012,
except for the amendment to Sec.  52.2132, which is effective on August
7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0785. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35714), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300
through .309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
    On December 17, 2007, SC DHEC submitted a revision to South
Carolina's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other
states' Class I areas. On February 28, 2012, EPA published an action
proposing a limited approval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP
revision to address the first implementation period for regional
haze.\1\ See 77 FR 11894. EPA proposed a limited approval of South
Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP revision to implement the regional
haze requirements for South Carolina on the basis that this revision,
as a whole, strengthens the South Carolina SIP. See section II of this
rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the proposed
actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed background
information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is provided in
EPA's February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the South Carolina
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional
haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements. Also, in that June 7, 2012,
action, EPA finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for South
Carolina to address the deficiencies that resulted from the State's
reliance on CAIR for their regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2
in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions than would best available retrofit technology (BART) in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies (including South Carolina).
See 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to
revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the
trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA
finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
    Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule
(including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the
outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging
the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received one set of comments on the February 28, 2012,
rulemaking proposing a limited approval of South Carolina's December
17, 2007, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were
received from the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League. A full set of the comments
provided by the aforementioned entity (hereinafter referred to as ``the
Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action. A
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter incorporates by reference comments
submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, by the ``Sierra Club,
Earthjustice, and other organizations'' regarding the Agency's December
30, 2011, proposed rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is
``better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for South Carolina and other states subject to the Transport Rule.
See 76 FR 82219. The Commenter also restates several of these comments,
including the following: the Transport Rule does not comply with EPA's
criteria for an alternative to BART; the State cannot rely on the
proposed ``better than BART'' rulemaking given the DC Circuit's action
staying implementation of the Transport Rule; concluding that the
Transport Rule achieves greater reasonable progress toward national
visibility conditions than BART, without regard to defined reasonable
progress goals (RPGs), is arbitrary and contrary to the CAA; EPA has
not accounted for the differences in averaging time under BART, the
Transport Rule, and in measuring visibility impacts; EPA's modeling
assumed nitrate levels that are often lower than real-world conditions;
in some instances, EPA relied on a single monitor to assess visibility
conditions in multiple Class I areas; EPA uses a simple arithmetic mean
to conclude that visibility improvements will be greater under the
Transport Rule than BART; and EPA's proposed ``Better than BART''
determination relies on a 2014 base case that does not account for
permanent emissions reductions at non-BART eligible sources.
    Response 1: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of South
Carolina's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that
participation in the

Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this action nor did EPA
reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they relate to BART.\2\ As
noted above, EPA proposed to find that the Transport Rule is ``Better
than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for
South Carolina in a separate action on December 30, 2011, and the
Commenter is merely reiterating and incorporating comments submitted on
that separate action. EPA addressed these February 28, 2012, comments
concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final action
that was published on June 7, 2012, and has determined that they do not
affect the Agency's ability to finalize a limited approval of South
Carolina's regional haze SIP. EPA's responses to these comments can be
found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA addressed
similar comments related to CAIR and determined that CAIR makes
greater reasonable progress than BART for certain EGUs and
pollutants (70 FR 39138-39143). EPA did not reopen comment on that
issue through this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that the proposed limited approval
violates the CAA and RHR because a regional haze plan's BART
requirements and long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress
cannot be evaluated in isolation from one another. The Commenter
supports its position by repeating statements made in the
aforementioned February 28, 2012, comments on the Agency's proposed
December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is
``better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for South Carolina and other states subject to the Transport Rule.
For example, the Commenter states that ``[b]ecause BART is a critical
component to achieving reasonable progress, neither the states nor EPA
are authorized to exempt sources from the RHR's BART requirements
without considering how doing so will affect the overarching reasonable
progress mandate. * * * Concluding that CSAPR achieves greater
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions than
BART, without regard to defined reasonable progress goals, is arbitrary
and contrary to law under the Clean Air Act and the RHR.''
    Response 2: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's
action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART
requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR
for the South Carolina regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope
of this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's
repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the LTS,
and RPGs in that final rulemaking action and those responses support
this limited approval action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA, Response to Comments Document, Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited
SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219;
December 30, 2011), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 (May 30,
2012), pages 49-51 (noting that EPA ``disagree[s] with comments that
we cannot evaluate the BART requirements in isolation from the
reasonable progress requirements. We have on several occasions
undertaken evaluations of a state's BART determination or
promulgated a FIP separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP
as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that EPA does not have the
authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval of South Carolina's
regional haze SIP. The Commenter contends that section 110(k) of the
Act only allows EPA to fully approve, partially approve and partially
disapprove, conditionally approve, or fully disapprove a SIP.
    Response 3: As discussed in the September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum
cited in the notice of proposed rulemaking,\4\ although section 110(k)
of the CAA may not expressly provide authority for limited approvals,
the plain language of section 301(a) does provide ``gap-filling''
authority authorizing the Agency to ``prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out'' EPA's CAA functions. EPA may rely on section
301(a) in conjunction with the Agency's SIP approval authority in
section 110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals where it has determined
that a submittal strengthens a given state's implementation plan, and
that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements of the Act are
not separable from the provisions that do not meet the Act's
requirements. EPA has adopted the limited approval approach numerous
times in SIP actions across the nation over the last 20 years. A
limited approval action is appropriate here because EPA has determined
that South Carolina's SIP revision addressing regional haze, as a
whole, strengthens the State's implementation plan and because the
provisions in the SIP revision are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'') located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter states that EPA's action ``conflicts with the plain
language of the [CAA]'' and cites several Federal appellate court
decisions to support its contention that section 110(k) of the Act
limits EPA to a full approval, ``a conditional approval, a partial
approval and disapproval, or a full disapproval.'' However, adopting
the Commenter's position would ignore section 301 and violate the ``
`fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a
statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in
the overall statutory scheme' * * * A court must therefore interpret
the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,' * * *
and `fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.' '' FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting
Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989),
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC v. Mandel
Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)). Furthermore, the cases cited
by the Commenter did not involve challenges to a limited approval
approach, and one of the cases, Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th
Cir. 1988), predates the 1990 CAA amendments enacting section 110(k).
    Comment 4: The Commenter contends that it was inappropriate for the
State to ``rel[y] on CAIR (and now CSAPR)'' in determining RPGs and
that due, in part, to this reliance, the State ``failed to evaluate
numerous sources that contribute significantly to visibility impairment
at the State's Class I areas'' and that it ``cast doubts on the
validity of DHEC's modeling.'' The Commenter therefore believes that
EPA should not approve the SIP unless the State considers additional
reasonable progress from the 10 electric generating units (EGUs)
excluded from the reasonable progress analyses and the State conducts
further analyses in setting its RPGs (or EPA ``ensure[s] that DHEC
follows through on its commitment to re-evaluate its ability to meet
its RPGs in the 5-year progress review, pursuant to 40 CFR.
52.308(g)''). The Commenter also states that ``even when the uniform
rate of progress [URP] is predicted to be met, the state still has an
obligation `to go beyond the URP analysis in establishing RPGs * * * to
determine whether additional progress would be reasonable based on the
statutory factors.'''
    Response 4: The State took into account emissions reductions
expected from CAIR to determine the 2018 RPGs for its Class I area, and
this approach was fully consistent with EPA guidance at the time of SIP
development. In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated
with modeled emissions

projections into the future are addressed through the requirement under
the RHR to submit periodic progress reports in the form of a SIP
revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires each state to submit
a report every five years evaluating progress toward the RPGs for each
mandatory Class I area located in the state and for each Class I area
outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state.
Since this 5-year progress re-evaluation is a mandatory requirement, it
is unnecessary for EPA to take additional measures to ``ensure'' that
the State meets its reporting obligation.
    Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing
RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a ``presumptive
target;'' rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See
64 FR 35731 and 35732, July 1, 1999. In determining RPGs for the South
Carolina Class I area, the State identified sources through its area of
influence methodology for reasonable progress control evaluation and
described those evaluations in its SIP. For its EGUs subject to CAIR,
SC DHEC reviewed the statutory factors (i.e., the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any potentially affected sources) as evaluated by EPA for CAIR.
    Comment 5: The Commenter contends that the emissions reductions
from some of the significant CAA emissions control programs and consent
decrees identified in the 2018 emissions inventory are speculative and
uncertain. The Commenter therefore believes that EPA should require
South Carolina to address any discrepancies, prior to approval of the
State's regional haze SIP.
    Response 5: The technical information provided in the record
demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the SIP adequately
reflects projected 2018 conditions and that the LTS meets the
requirements of the RHR and is approvable. South Carolina's 2018
projections are based on the State's technical analysis of the
anticipated emissions rates and level of activity for EGUs, other point
sources, nonpoint sources, on-road sources, and off-road sources based
on their emissions in the 2002 base year, considering growth and
additional emissions controls to be in place and federally enforceable
by 2018. The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) with assistance from South
Carolina. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002
emissions (the latest region-wide inventory available at the time the
submittal was being developed) and applying reductions expected from
Federal and state regulations affecting the emissions of VOC and the
visibility impairing pollutants NOX, particulate matter
(PM), and SO2. To minimize the differences between the 2018
projected emissions used in the South Carolina regional haze submittal
and what actually occurs in 2018, the RHR requires that the 5-year
review address any expected significant differences due to changed
circumstances from the initial 2018 projected emissions, provide
updated expectations regarding emissions for the implementation period,
and evaluate the impact of these differences on RPGs. It is expected
that individual projections within a statewide inventory will vary from
actual emissions over a 16-year period. For example, some facilities
shut down whereas others expand operations. Furthermore, economic
projections and population changes used to estimate growth often differ
from actual events; new rules are modified, changing their expected
effectiveness; and methodologies to estimate emissions improve,
modifying emissions estimates. The 5-year review is a mechanism to
assure that these expected differences from projected emissions are
considered and their impact on the 2018 RPGs is evaluated. EPA finds
that these inventories provide a reasonable assessment of future
emissions from South Carolina sources.
    Comment 6: The Commenter states that in exempting EGUs from a BART
analysis ``on the basis that their contribution to visibility
impairment modeled less than 0.5 deciview, it does not appear that DHEC
considered the cumulative impact of those sources that did not
individually exceed the 0.5 dv threshold, but collectively may cause or
contribute to impairment.'' The Commenter cites to EPA guidelines in 70
FR 39161 and39162, July 6, 2005, to support its belief that this
exemption threshold ``applies when all visibility impairing pollutants
are modeled together, not one pollutant at a time, as used by DHEC.''
According to the Commenter, when considering the modeling impacts from
coarse particulate matter (PM10) alone for the exempted
sources, their combined ``contribution to visibility impairment greatly
exceeds the 0.5 dv contribution threshold,'' calling into question the
``validity of DHEC's exemptions of multiple sources from BART.''
    Response 6: As discussed in the proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2,
February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11908), South Carolina adequately justified
its contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. While states have the
discretion to set an appropriate contribution threshold considering the
number of emissions sources affecting the Class I area at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts, the states' analysis must
be consistent with the CAA, the RHR, and EPA's Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with the regulations and EPA's
guidance, ``the contribution threshold should be used to determine
whether an individual source is reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment. You should not aggregate the visibility effects
of multiple sources and compare their collective effects against your
contribution threshold because this would inappropriately create a
`contribution to contribution' test.'' See also 70 FR 39121, Note 34,
July 6, 2005. South Carolina's analysis in the regional haze SIP
revision was consistent with EPA's regulations and guidance on the
issue of cumulative analyses.
    Regarding modeling in South Carolina's submittal that uses PM only
for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously determined that this
approach is appropriate for EGUs where the State proposed to rely on
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and
NOX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, EPA Memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, OAQPS, to
Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 4, July 19, 2006, located at:
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The Commenter believes that the PM BART determinations
for South Carolina Electric & Gas' (``SCE&G's'') Wateree and Williams
stations are flawed because ``it appears that DHEC did not evaluate
BART for all particulate matter. BART requires an evaluation of
technology for filterable PM10 and PM2.5 as well
as condensable particulate matter * * *. DHEC's BART determinations * *
* appear to have been based [on] cost analyses that were conducted for
condensable PM10. The finer fractions of particulate matter
(PM2.5) make a relatively larger contribution to visibility
impacts. This has an impact in estimating emission reductions and
selecting the most effective controls. EPA must require DHEC to conduct
new BART determinations that correct this flaw.''
    Response 7: It is unclear from the comment what PM control
strategies

were allegedly ignored by the State in the BART analyses for these two
stations. Each of the control options evaluated for these facilities in
South Carolina's regional haze SIP submittal considered the
contribution of total PM10 and PM2.5 (as a subset
of the total PM10) as well as condensables (primarily
sulfuric acid mist) (see Appendix H.6 of South Carolina's December 17,
2007, SIP submittal). The installed controls on both facilities are
effective at reducing filterable and condensable particulates, and as a
result, the State determined that additional reductions were not cost
effective. The Commenter did not identify any alternative control
technology for fine particles not considered by the State that could
affect the BART determination.
    Comment 8: According to the Commenter, it was ``inappropriate and
arbitrary for DHEC to use the CAIR cost per ton of SO2
removed as the cost threshold for evaluating reasonable progress
controls. The only rationale DHEC offered in support of this decision
was that DHEC `believes it is not equitable to require non-EGUs to bear
a greater economic burden than EGUs for a given control strategy' * *
*. EPA, likewise, acknowledges that `the use of a specific threshold
for assessing costs means that a state may not fully consider available
emissions reduction measures above its threshold that would result in
meaningful visibility improvement,' but proposes to approve South
Carolina's reasonable progress analysis anyway * * * EPA should re-
evaluate this decision in its final action on this proposal, especially
in light of the fact that DHEC determined that no additional reasonable
controls were required at any of the sources affecting visibility in
South Carolina's Class I area.''
    Response 8: As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance \6\ and
discussed further in EPA's February 28, 2012, proposal action on the
South Carolina regional haze SIP submittal (77 FR 11906), the states
have wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control
requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways
for a state to approach identification of additional reasonable
measures. States must consider, at a minimum, the four statutory
factors in determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility
in how to take these factors into consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William
L.Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (``EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance''), page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing DHEC's methodology and analyses and the record
prepared by DHEC, EPA finds South Carolina's conclusion that no further
controls are necessary at this time acceptable and that the State
adequately evaluated the control technologies available at the time of
its analysis and applicable to this type of facility and consistently
applied its criteria for reasonable compliance costs. See 77 FR 11906,
February 28, 2012. The State also included appropriate documentation in
its SIP of the technical analysis it used to assess the need for and
implementation of reasonable progress controls. Although the use of a
specific threshold for assessing costs means that a state may not fully
consider available emissions reduction measures above its threshold
that would result in meaningful visibility improvement, EPA believes
that the South Carolina SIP ensures reasonable progress.
    In approving South Carolina's reasonable progress analysis, EPA is
placing great weight on the fact that there is no indication in the SIP
revision that South Carolina, as a result of using a specific cost
effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable progress
measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility in its
Class I areas.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision.\7\ Today, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007,
regional haze SIP revision. This limited approval results in approval
of South Carolina's entire regional haze submission and all its
elements. EPA is taking this approach because South Carolina's SIP will
be stronger and more protective of the environment with the
implementation of those measures by the State and having Federal
approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being
included in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the South
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of South Carolina on December 17,
2007, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as
set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308. Also in this action, EPA is rescinding the Federal regulations in
40 CFR 52.2132 that were approved into the South Carolina SIP on July
12, 1985, and November 24, 1987, and is approving the provisions in
South Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP submittal to meet the
monitoring and LTS requirements for RAVI at 40 CFR 51.305 and 40 CFR
51.306, respectively.

V. 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

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * * 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The 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 CAA 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 CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA 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 today's action 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 approves 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 CAA. 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.'' Consistent with the EPA
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA
complies with this Executive Order through the process of tribal
consultation. With respect to today's action, EPA has offered the
Catawba Indian Nation two opportunities to consult.\8\ First, in an
email dated October 21, 2010, EPA extended the Catawba Indian Nation an
opportunity to consult, however, the Tribe declined to consult with EPA
at that time. Due to the passage of time between the initial offer of
consultation and today's proposed action, EPA provided the Catawba
Indian Nation a second opportunity to consult on the South Carolina
Regional Haze SIP revision on February 1, 2012. In an email dated
February 8, 2012, the Catawba Indian Nation stated that no consultation
on this pending action was needed by the Tribe. Further, EPA has no
information to suggest that today's action will impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the
South Carolina. Generally, SIPs do not apply in Indian country
throughout the United States, however, for purposes of the Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does
apply within the Reservation pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (providing that ``all state
and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba
Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all
relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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 (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the 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.
    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.

J. Congressional Review Act

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

copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2120 (e) is amended by adding an entry for ``Regional
Haze Plan'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Provision                State effective date    EPA approval date             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional haze plan.................            12/17/2007              6/28/2012            [Insert citation of
                                                                                publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2132 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (a)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2132  Visibility protection.

    (a) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-15465 Filed 6-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 250 (Friday, December 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80530-80532]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28456]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-26-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on December 13, 2022, Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern), 915 N Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1100, Houston, Texas
77079, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Texas Eastern's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000, for
authorization to abandon in place certain pipeline facilities, and
abandon related meter and regulating (M&R) stations and ancillary
facilities (Port 6 Laterals Pipeline Abandonment Project). The proposed
abandonment and removal activities are located in DeWitt, Goliad, and
Victoria Counties, Texas.
    Texas Eastern also states that the Port 6 Laterals Pipeline
Abandonment Project will have no impact on the certificated capacity of
Texas Eastern's system, and that there will be no reduction in firm
service to Texas Eastern's existing customers as a result of the
proposed abandonment activities, all as more fully set forth in the
application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Estela D. Lozano, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642,

at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to [email protected].
    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 21, 2023.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is February 21, 2023. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is February 21, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before February 21, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-26-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-26-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail at: Estela D. Lozano, Director, Regulatory, Texas
Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or
email (with a link to the document) at: [email protected]. Any
subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant
and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for
parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on
FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-28456 Filed 12-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 59258]
[DOCID:fr27se10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2653-000]

Snowflake Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 16, 2010.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Snowflake Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24081 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76504-76505]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4380]

Best Practices for Communication Between Investigational New Drug
Sponsors and Food and Drug Administration During Drug Development;
Draft Guidance for Industry and Review Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a draft guidance for industry and review staff
entitled ``Best Practices for Communication Between IND Sponsors and
FDA During Drug Development.'' The purpose of this guidance is to
describe best practices and procedures for timely, transparent, and
effective communications between investigational new drug application
(IND) sponsors and FDA at critical junctures in drug development, which
may facilitate earlier availability of safe and effective drugs to the
American public.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by February 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-4380 for ``Best Practices for Communication Between IND
Sponsors and FDA During Drug Development; Draft Guidance for Industry
and Review Staff; Availability.'' Received comments will be placed in
the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or Office
of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel E. Hartford, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0319; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg.
71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
and review staff entitled ``Best Practices for Communication Between
IND Sponsors and FDA During Drug Development.'' As part of the
Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012, described in
``Reauthorization Performance Goals

and Procedures; Fiscal Years 2013 through 2017,'' the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation
and Research (CBER) agreed to publish a joint guidance for industry and
review staff on best practices for communication between IND sponsors
and FDA during drug development.
    To establish the best practices described in this guidance, CDER
and CBER gathered the experiences of review staff and incorporated
input from interested parties who responded to a notice published in
the Federal Register (79 FR 64397; October 29, 2014) or who provided
input directly to CDER's Enhanced Communication Team.
    This guidance describes FDA's philosophy regarding timely
interactive communication with IND sponsors as a core activity; the
scope of appropriate interactions between the review team and the
sponsor; the types of advice appropriate for sponsors to seek from FDA
in pursuing their drug development program; the general expectations
for the timing of FDA response to IND sponsor inquiries; best practices
and communication methods to facilitate interactions between the FDA
review team and the IND sponsor during drug development; and
expectations on appropriate methods and frequency of such
communications. This guidance does not apply to communications or
inquiries from industry trade organizations, consumer or patient
advocacy organizations, other government agencies, or other
stakeholders not pursuing a development program under an IND.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on best practices
for communication between IND sponsors and FDA during drug development.
It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on
FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have
been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001,
respectively.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015-30931 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P