1 RENEWAL OF INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN REGULATION, SUBPART J ( 40 CFR 300.900)

( EPA ICR # 1664.05)

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Renewal of INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST ( ICR) for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Subpart J ( 40 CFR 300.900). EPA ICR # 1664.05.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This information collection request ( ICR) renewal supports activities to implement the NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN ( NCP), Subpart J ( 40CFR 300.900, " Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals").

The use of bioremediation agents, dispersants, surface washing agents, surface collecting agents and miscellaneous agents in response to oil spills in U. S. waters or adjoining shorelines is governed by Subpart J of the NCP regulation ( 40 CFR 300.900). Subpart J requirements include criteria for listing oil spill mitigating agents on the NCP Product Schedule, hereafter referred to as the Schedule. EPA's regulation, which is codified at 40 CFR 300.00, requires that EPA prepare a schedule of " dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the NCP." The Schedule is required by section 311( d)( 2)( G) of the CLEAN WATER ACT ( CWA), as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Schedule is used by Federal ON SCENE COORDINATORS ( OSCs), REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAMS ( RRTs), and Area Planners to identify spill mitigating agents in preparation and response to oil spills.

Under Subpart J, respondents who want to add a product to the Schedule must submit technical product data to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or Agency) as stipulated in 40 CFR 300.915. Specifically, Subpart J requires the manufacturer to conduct specific toxicity and effectiveness tests and submit the corresponding technical product data along with other detailed information to the EPA Oil Program Center. A dispersant must exceed the 50% ( ± 5%) threshold in order to be listed on the Schedule. EPA places oil spill mitigating agents on the Schedule if all the required data are submitted and the product satisfies all requirements and meets or exceeds testing thresholds. The Product Schedule is available to Federal OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees for determining the most appropriate products to use in various spill scenarios.

Products currently listed on the Product Schedule are divided into five basic categories: dispersants, surface washing agents, surface collecting agents, bioremediation agents, and 2 miscellaneous oil spill control agents. There are 52 products currently listed on the Schedule ( as of March 2003). It is estimated that 14 products per year will be submitted to EPA for listing on the Schedule. Over the three year information collection period, that will result in an estimated 42 products to be listed. Additionally, it is estimated that approximately 10 manufacturers will submit sorbent certification. The annual public reporting burden will be 390 hours. The total annual cost to manufacturers under Subpart J will be $ 95,558.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Section 311( d)( 2)( G) of the CWA, requires a product schedule, identifying " dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out" the NCP. The authority of the President to implement the CWA is currently delegated to EPA by Executive Order 12777 ( 56 FR 54757, October 18, 1991). The use of dispersants, other chemical agents, and biological additives to respond to oil spills in U. S. waters is governed by Subpart J of the NCP ( 40 CFR 300.900).

The Schedule is available for use by OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees in determining the most appropriate products to use or prohibit in various spill scenarios. Under 40 CFR 300.910( a), RRTs and Area Committees are required to address the desirability of using the products on the Schedule in their REGIONAL CONTINGENCY PLANS ( RCPs) and AREA CONTINGENCY PLANS ( ACPs), respectively. The required information is needed from the respondent so that the OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees can make informed decisions to safely employ chemical/ biological countermeasures to control oil discharges. Correct product use is critical in emergency situations. Subpart J ensures that OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees have necessary data regarding the toxicity, effectiveness, and other characteristics of different products.

To place a product on the Schedule, Subpart J requires that the manufacturer conduct specific toxicity and effectiveness tests and submit the corresponding technical product data and other required information to EPA Oil Program Center. EPA has established an effectiveness threshold for listing dispersants ( 40 CFR 300.920( a)( 2)). Only those dispersants that meet or exceed the established threshold will be listed on the Schedule.

At 40 CFR 300.915( d), EPA requires respondents to test bioremediation agents for effectiveness, using the testing protocol contained in Appendix C to part 300. The Bioremediation Agent Effectiveness Test is used to compare the effectiveness of different bioremediation agents. The objective of the effectiveness testing protocol is to provide empirical laboratory evidence that evaluates a bioremediation agent's ability to enhance biodegradation as compared to the natural population.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data EPA places eligible oil spill mitigating agents on the Schedule if all the required data are submitted. The Schedule is available for use by OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees in determining the most appropriate products to use in various spill scenarios. Under 40 CFR 3 300.910( a), RRTs and Area Committees are required to address the desirability of using the products on the Schedule in their RCPs and ACPs, respectively. The required information is needed from the respondent so that the OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees can make informed decisions to safely employ chemical/ biological countermeasures to control oil discharges. Correct product use is critical in emergency situations. Subpart J ensures that OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees have the necessary data regarding the toxicity, effectiveness, and other characteristics of different products.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication There is no other source for this information.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), the Agency has notified the public through a Federal Register notice that it is submitting this renewal ICR and, as part of the process, soliciting public comment concerning the burden estimates for respondents. EPA specifically has requested comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

3( c) Consultations In developing this NCP Subpart J renewal ICR, EPA consulted with other Federal agencies; Federal OSCs; NCP Product Schedule experts; State agencies; technical experts, both international and domestic; and various commercial laboratories.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Respondents must submit information only when they apply to list a new product on the Schedule, or when the composition, formulation, application, or contact information of a product currently listed on the Schedule is changed. Because collection is not periodic, less frequent collection is not possible.

3( e) General Guidelines The information collection activities discussed in this renewal ICR comply with all Paperwork Reduction Act regulatory guidelines ( 5 CFR 1320.6), with the exception of the provision concerning small entities. Under Subpart J, small entities must follow the same collection procedures as other respondents. OSCs need the required information to choose products with which they can safely and effectively control oil discharges. As explained in section 5( c), the establishment of an acceptability criterion for dispersant effectiveness and the requirement for 4 effectiveness testing for bioremediation agents are not anticipated to results in significant economic impacts on small businesses.

3( f) Confidentiality Section 300.920( c) allows respondents to assert that certain information in the technical product data submissions is confidential business information. EPA will handle such claims pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. Such information must be submitted separately from non confidential information, clearly identified, and clearly marked " Confidential Business Information." If the applicant fails to make such a claim at the time of submittal, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes Respondents include, but are not limited to, manufacturers of bioremediation agents, dispersants, surface collecting agents, surface washing agents and other chemical agents and biological additives used as countermeasures against oil spills. Affected private industries can be expected to fall within the following industrial classifications:

° Manufacturers of industrial inorganic chemicals ( SIC 281/ NAICS 325188), ° Manufacturers of industrial organic chemicals ( SIC 286/ NAICS 325199), and ° Manufacturers of miscellaneous chemical products ( SIC 289/ NAICS 325988).

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items Under Subpart J, manufacturers who wish to list a product on the Schedule must report the following data items listed in Exhibit 1. No specific recordkeeping activities are required. EXHIBIT 1 Data Items Required Under NCP Subpart J RESPONSE FORM ITEMS RESPONDENT ACTIVITY BURDEN HOURS OIL SPILL MITIGATING AGENT BA D MA SCA SWA Name, brand, or trademark, if any, under which the product is sold Simple Information 0 to 0.5 X X X X X Name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, importer or vendor X X X X X Name, address and telephone number of primary distributors or sales outlets X X X X X Special handling information and worker precautions for storage and field application, including maximum and minimum storage temperatures Short Answer 0.5 to 1 X X X X X Shelf life information Simple Information 0 to 0.5 X X X X X Recommended application procedures, concentrations, and conditions for use Short Answer 0.5 to 1 X X X X X Results of the effectiveness test set forth in Appendix C of the NCP Narrative Answer 2.0 to 5.0 X X Result of the toxicity test set forth in Appendix C of the NCP Narrative Answer 2.0 to 5.0 X X X X Physical properties covered by the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM) reference standards Short Answer 0.5 to 1 X X X X Test results for distinguishing surface collecting agents from other chemical agents Short Answer 0.5 to 1 X List of product components Narrative Answer 2.0 to 5.0 X X X X The concentrations or upper limits of any heavy metals, cyanide, and chlorinated hydrocarbons Short Answer 0.5 to 1 X X X X Information on microbiological cultures, enzyme additives, and nutrient additives Narrative Answer 2.0 to 5.0 X X Identity of laboratory performing tests, the qualifications of the laboratory staff, and laboratory experience with similar tests Narrative Answer 2.0 to 5.0 X X X X X KEY: BA = Bioremediation Agent, D = Dispersant, MA = Miscellaneous Agent, SCA= Surface Collecting Agent, and SWA = Surface Washing Agent 6 ( ii) Respondent Activities Except for effectiveness and toxicity testing, the data items discussed in Section 4( b) should already be available to respondents through customary business practices ( i. e., normal research and development activities). Effectiveness and toxicity tests, where applicable, burden respondents with the additional task of sending the product to a laboratory for testing.

Processing, compiling, and reviewing the information required under Subpart J requires the following respondent activities:

Inserting simple information;

Drafting short answers;

Drafting narrative answers and preparing backup documentation;

Secretarial/ clerical support; and

Managerial review.

Under Subpart J, the respondent must also notify EPA of any changes in the composition, formulation, or application of the dispersant, surface washing agent, surface collecting agent, bioremediation agent, or miscellaneous oil spill control agent. If the change is likely to alter the effectiveness or toxicity of the product, EPA may require retesting. If EPA decides that retesting is necessary, the respondent must have the product tested in a laboratory and send a summary of the results along with the qualifications of the laboratory staff to EPA.

5. INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Under Subpart J, EPA will perform activities when a manufacturer applies to have a product listed on the Schedule. Once a manufacturer submits the technical product data required by Subpart J, EPA must perform the following activities:

Receive and process the data;

Review the data for completeness and procedural accuracy;

Notify the respondent of the decision on listing the product on the Schedule; and

If approved, place the product on the Schedule, store the data, and supply the data upon request.

EPA's decision to place a product on the Schedule is based on the completeness of the information presented. EPA will not evaluate a submitted product beyond the revised effectiveness threshold for the dispersants.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management 1 52 products were listed on the March 2003 Environmental Protection Agency National Contingency Plan Product Schedule, prepared by U. S. EPA Oil Program Center, ( 5203G) Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. http:// www. epa. gov/ oilspill/ docs/ schedule. pdf.

7 Respondents submit the required data to EPA in hard copy. If the data are accepted by EPA, they are entered electronically on the Schedule. The data are then made available to OSCs through four media: ( 1) hard copy; ( 2) an Internet web page; ( 3) electronic mail; ( 4) NOAA First Class; and ( 5) File Transfer Protocol. The five options ensure that OSCs can obtain the information as efficiently as possible and that the information is useful in practice.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The Subpart J requirements are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule EPA requires information to be collected whenever a manufacturer wants a product listed on the Schedule, or when a product already on the Schedule changes in composition, formulation, application, or other product information changes.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Respondent Burden This section presents the three year total and annualized burden for respondents for information collection activities under Subpart J. Respondents include manufacturers expected to submit products for listing on the Schedule over the three year period addressed by this renewal ICR.

There are 45 manufacturers and 52 products ( 12 bioremediation agents, 11 dispersants, 8 miscellaneous agents, and 21 surface washing agents) listed on the March 2003 Schedule. 1 EPA estimates that 14 products will apply to the Schedule annually, including 3 bioremediation agents, 4 dispersants, 2 miscellaneous agents, and 5 surface washing agents. Therefore, over a three year period, an estimated total of 9 bioremediation agents, 12 dispersants, 6 miscellaneous agents, and 15 surface washing agents are expected to apply for listing on the Schedule. EPA expects that approximately one third of the 14 annual product submissions ( 5 products) will be approved by EPA and listed annually on the Schedule. A respondent's burden for preparing a product for listing on the Schedule is the same whether or not EPA lists the product. Therefore, burden is determined for all manufacturers applying to list a product on the Schedule, rather than just for those that receive approval from EPA.

Under Subpart J, EPA estimates that manufacturers applying to list a new product on the Schedule would require approximately 7 to 25 hours of technical labor. The technical labor estimate includes the time needed to complete each individual response item required by Subpart J, as well as the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, prepare backup documentation, and maintain/ record the data. The time required depends on the type of 2 The following model certification statement suffices: "[ SORBENT NAME] is a sorbent material and consists solely of the materials listed in § 300.917( b)( 2) of the NCP."

8 information requested for a given product. Managerial labor burden for preparing and submitting the required technical product data is estimated to be approximately one fifth of the total technical hours per product type. Clerical labor burden for preparing and submitting the required technical product data is estimated to be 5 to 10 hours per product. Exhibit 2 summarizes the estimated burden to respondents for each oil spill mitigation agent type under Subpart J.

Sorbents are not listed on the Schedule. However, when determining whether to use a sorbent, OSCs may request that sorbent manufacturers submit a written certification that their product meets the definition in Subpart J. 2 The estimated unit burden for sorbent certification is 3 hours ( 0.25 managerial, 2.0 technical, and 0.75 clerical). Because sorbents are not listed on the Schedule, the small burden of sorbent certification is not shown in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 2 Respondent Burden to Prepare and Submit Information to EPA Under NCP Subpart J UNIT BURDEN ( hours) OIL SPILL MITIGATING AGENT Bioremediation Agents Dispersants Miscellaneous Agents Surface Collecting Agents Surface Washing Agents Managerial Review 1.4 to 3.6 2.0 to 5.0 2.0 to 5.0 1.7 to 4.2 Technical Support 7.0 to 18.0 10.0 to 25.0 10.0 to 25.0 8.5 to 21.0 Clerical Support 5 to 10 5 to 10 5 to 10 5 to 10 5 to 10 Average 22.5 28.5 28.5 25.2 24.3 Frequency of response 3/ year 4/ year 2/ year 0/ year 5/ year Average Annual Burden 67.5 114.0 57.0 0 121.5 3 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Employment Cost Trends, Table 10  Private industry workers. December 2002.

4 Overhead costs were computed separately from BLS data and were assumed to be an additional 17 percent of the total wage rate, which is comprised of direct wages and salaries and employee benefits, as reported by BLS. Adjustments to wage rates for overhead costs are based on the results of several earlier Information Collection Requests that adjusted wage rates by an additional 17 percent based on the results of a survey of chemical industries and trade associations. ( See, for example, Information Collection Request for the Toxic Chemical Release Report for the Proposed Lead Rule, EPA ICR # 1363.08.) EPA has previously contacted several different petroleum trade associations and industries, but has been unable to improve upon this estimate.

9 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs EPA derived the labor wages from the U. S. Department of Labor's Employment Cost Indexes and Levels. 3 The wage rates, based on December 2002 dollars, include wages and salaries; benefit costs, including paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, legally required benefits, severance pay, and supplemental unemployment benefits; and overhead costs. 4 These wage rates reflect private industry averages, which were estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on a survey of 32,200 occupations within 7,500 establishments in the private sector. The estimated hourly wage rates used in this analysis are:

Management: $ 50.30 Technical: $ 34.75 Clerical: $ 21.47 Estimating Capital/ Start up Cost for Product Manufacturers Laboratory costs are incurred when a respondent must test its product for effectiveness and/ or toxicity according to the methods outlined in Appendix C of the NCP regulations. These costs are considered capital/ start up costs. In order to provide the necessary test result information to EPA, respondents typically have their product tested at a laboratory.

° The dispersant effectiveness test will cost an estimated $ 1,200 for each product using the swirling flask method. A dispersant must exceed the 50% ( ± 5%) threshold in order to be listed on the Schedule.

° The protocol for effectiveness testing of bioremediation agents under Subpart J is estimated to cost $ 15,000.

° EPA estimates that the toxicity test required for dispersants, miscellaneous agents, surface collecting agents, and surface washing agents costs $ 3,000 per product.

Respondents are not expected to incur any OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE ( O& M) costs for this renewal ICR. The unit costs for each respondent to comply with the information collection requirements are presented in Exhibit 3. The unit cost is the sum of the labor cost and the non labor capital/ start up laboratory cost. The total unit costs are presented as ranges, reflecting the ranges of burden estimates. 10 EXHIBIT 3 Respondent Cost for Activities Required Under NCP Subpart Ja UNIT COST PER OIL SPILL MITIGATING AGENT Bioremediation Agents Dispersants Miscellaneous Agents Surface Collecting Agents Surface Washing Agents Labor Cost $ 421$ 1,021 $ 555$ 1,335 $ 555$ 1,335 $ 488$ 1,156 $ 466$ 1,111 Non Labor Capital/ Start up Laboratory Cost Effectiveness Test $ 15,000 $ 1,200 N/ A N/ A N/ A Toxicity Test N/ A $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Total Unit Cost $ 15,421$ 16,021 $ 4,755$ 5,535 $ 3,555$ 4,335 $ 3,488$ 4,156 $ 3,466$ 4,111 Frequency of response 3/ year 4/ year 2/ year 0/ year 5/ year Average Annual Cost $ 47,163 $ 20,581 $ 7,890 $ 0 $ 18,942 a Sorbent manufacturer unit cost for certification is estimated to be $ 98 per respondent. The average annual cost is estimated to be $ 982 ($ 98 x 10 sorbent certifications per year).

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs This section presents the estimated unit burden and unit cost to EPA for maintaining the Schedule. Burden estimates are based on EPA's experience with placing products on the Schedule under Subpart J. Exhibit 4 shows the labor burdens to EPA for each activity under Subpart J. The agency activities were discussed previously in section 5( a). EPA's burden is 20 hours per listing.

EXHIBIT 4 Estimated EPA Burden to Implement NCP Subpart J INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY BURDEN ( HOURS)

Bioremediation Agents Dispersants Miscellaneous Agents Surface Collecting Agents Surface Washing Agents Process submitted data 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 Review data for approval 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Notify respondent of decision 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Store data 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Total Burden 20 20 20 20 20 Frequency of response 3/ year 4/ year 2/ year 0/ year 5/ year ANNUAL BURDEN 60 80 40 0 100 5 U. S. Office of Personnel Management. 2003 General Schedule: Effective January 2003. ( http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 03tables/ OtherPayPlans/ table1. asp)

6Calculated as 20 burden hours multiplied by average hourly water rate of $ 46.10.

11 Based on the 2003 general pay schedule for the Federal government, EPA estimates an average hourly wage rate of $ 46.10 for management and technical staff to maintain the Product Schedule. 5 To derive hourly estimates, the average step 1 to step 10 annual compensation mid point for a GS 13 ($ 70,440) managerial staff and a GS 11 technical staff ($ 49,425) was divided by 2,080 ( the number of hours in the Federal work year) and multiplied by the standard government overhead factor ( 1.6). The adjusted wage rate is multiplied by the hours in Exhibit 4 to obtain EPA labor burden cost. The cost of labor per application is therefore $ 922.6 For dispersants under Subpart J, § 300.920( a)( 2) gives EPA the right to verify test results and consider the results of EPA's verification testing in determining whether the dispersant meets the listing criteria. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA estimates all submitted dispersant applications will undergo verification tests at a cost of $ 1,200 per test. EPA's intent, as stated in Subpart J, is to verify all dispersants test through EPA's Office of Research and Development. Thus, on average EPA estimates that verification testing will cost approximately $ 1,200 per dispersant submission. This results in a total unit cost of $ 2,122 per dispersant per application. There are no costs in addition to labor for other types of products under Subpart J.

The annual costs to EPA under Subpart J are presented in Exhibit 5. As mentioned previously, it is estimated that, under Subpart J, applications will be received for 3 bioremediation agents, 4 dispersants, 2 miscellaneous agents, and 5 surface washing agents per year over the course of the three year renewal ICR period. 12 EXHIBIT 5 Estimated EPA Cost to Implement NCP Subpart J INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY UNIT COST PER OIL SPILL MITIGATING AGENT Bioremediation Agents Dispersants Miscellaneous Agents Surface Collecting Agents Surface Washing Agents Labor Costa $ 922 $ 922 $ 922 $ 922 $ 922 Non Labor Capital/ Start up Laboratory Cost Effectiveness Test N/ A $ 1,200 N/ A N/ A N/ A Toxicity Test N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Total Unit Cost $ 922 $ 2,122 $ 922 $ 922 $ 922 Frequency of response 3/ year 4/ year 2/ year 0/ year 5/ year Total Annual Cost $ 2,766 $ 8,488 $ 1,844 $ 0 $ 4,610 a EPA labor cost is based on 20 hours per response x $ 46.10/ hour.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Estimated Total Annual Burdens and Costs for All Respondents The average annual burdens ( i. e., the burdens to all respondents within a product category) are presented at the bottom of Exhibit 2. The average annual burden is arrived at by multiplying the average unit burden ( the midpoint of the range) by the estimated frequency of responses per year for each oil spill mitigating agent type.

The number of responses expected annually over the three year renewal ICR period has been estimated based on the average rate of applications for listing on the Schedule over the last three years. It is estimated that responses would be submitted for 3 bioremediation agents, 4 dispersants, 2 miscellaneous oil spill control agents, 0 surface collecting agents, and 5 surface washing agents each year of the renewal ICR period; consequently EPA estimates that on average 14 total product listings will occur each year of the ICR period.

Based on the average annual burdens shown in Exhibit 2, the total average annual burden under Subpart J will be approximately 360 hours for all 14 respondents. However, it is also expected that 10 sorbent manufacturers per year will have to certify the composition of their product at an annual burden of 30 hours. Therefore the total annual burden to manufacturers under Subpart J will be approximately 390 hours.

The annual costs for the product categories are presented at the bottom of Exhibit 3. These are calculated by multiplying the average unit cost ( the midpoint of the range) for listing a product under each category by the number of products expected to be listed in each category on an annual basis. 13 Based on the average annual costs shown in Exhibit 3, the total annual cost under Subpart J will be $ 94,576 for all 14 respondents. However, it is also expected that 10 sorbent manufacturers per year will be have to certify the composition of their product, at an annual cost of $ 982 ( 10 products x $ 98 per product). Therefore the total annual cost to manufactures under Subpart J will be $ 95,558.

Estimated Total Annual Burden and Cost to EPA The annual burden and costs to EPA under Subpart J are presented at the bottom of the tables in Exhibits 4 and 5, respectively. The annual agency burden is determined by multiplying the unit agency burden by the expected frequency of applications. For example, it is estimated that the average request to list a dispersant would require 20 hours of EPA staff time under Subpart J ( as shown in Exhibit 4). It is also estimated that EPA would process 4 applications for dispersants each year, as mentioned above. Therefore, the annual burden to EPA for dispersants under Subpart J would be approximately 80 hours ( 20 hours/ application x 4 applications). The total annual burden to EPA under Subpart J will be approximately 280 hours ( 20 hours/ application x 14 application). The number of future responses has been estimated based on the average rate of applications for listing on the Schedule over the last three years. As mentioned previously, it is estimated that applications will be received for 3 bioremediation agents, 4 dispersants, 2 miscellaneous oil spill control agents, 0 surface collecting agents, and 5 surface washing agents each year of the renewal ICR period.

The annual cost to EPA, as shown in Exhibit 5, is determined by multiplying the unit cost by the frequency of response. For example, it is estimated that the annual cost for listing dispersants will be $ 8,488 ($ 2,122 per application x 4 dispersants per year). The total annual cost to EPA under Subpart J will be $ 17,708.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The total annual burden and costs for each of the three years of the renewal ICR period are illustrated in Exhibit 6. The labor cost represents the average hourly burden weighted by the appropriate wage category ( management, technical, or clerical). Capital/ start up costs vary depending on product type and the test( s) required. For the renewal ICR period, the burden hours for respondents will be 1,170 hours ( 390 + 390 + 390). Based on Exhibit 6 3, the annual start up costs for respondents is $ 82,800 (($ 15,000)( 3/ year) + ($ 1,200 + $ 3000)( 4/ year) + ($ 3,000)( 2/ year) + ($ 3,000)( 5/ year)). Therefore the total capital/ start up costs for respondents for the three year renewal ICR period will be $ 248,400.

The annual respondent labor cost for oil spill mitigating devices and substances excluding sorbents is $ 11,776, which is based on Exhibit 3, and the equation:

([{$ 421+$ 1,021}/ 2] x 3/ year) + ([{$ 555 + $ 1,335}/ 2] x 4/ year) + ([{$ 555 + $ 1,335}/ 2] x 2/ year) + ([{$ 488 + $ 1,156}/ 2] x 0/ year) + ([{$ 466 + $ 1,111}/ 2] x 5/ year) = $ 11,776 The annual respondent labor cost of sorbent is ($ 98.17 x 10 respondents) $ 982. Therefore the total annual labor cost for respondents is $ 12,758, and the total labor costs for respondents for the three year ICR period will be $ 38,274 ($ 12,758 x 3 years). Therefore, the bottom line cost for respondents for the three year renewal ICR period will be $ 286,674 ($ 248,400 + $ 38,274). There are no O& M costs associated with this renewal ICR.

EXHIBIT 6 Total Burden and Cost Estimates Under Subpart J RESPONDENTS EPA Burden ( hours) Labor Costs Capital/ Start up Costs Burden ( hours) Labor Costs Capital/ Start up Costs Year 1 390 $ 12,758 $ 82,800 280 $ 12,908 $ 4,800 Year 2 390 $ 12,758 $ 82,800 280 $ 12,908 $ 4,800 Year 3 390 $ 12,758 $ 82,800 280 $ 12,908 $ 4,800 Totala 1,170 $ 38,274 $ 248,400 840 $ 38,724 $ 14,400 a Total hours are rounded to the nearest hour. Total costs are rounded to three significant figures.

Based on Exhibit 4, the Subpart J annual burden for EPA is 280 hours. Therefore, the total burden hours for EPA during the three year renewal ICR period will be 840. The total annual labor costs for EPA from will be $ 12,908. The total labor costs for EPA over the three year renewal ICR period will be $ 38,724 ($ 12,908 x 3 years).

6( f) Reasons for the Change in Burden The previous NCP Subpart J ICR ( August, 2000) estimated that the annual burden for respondents would be 826 hours, and the annual burden for EPA would be 560 hours. This burden estimate has been adjusted to a new estimate of 390 hours for respondents and 280 hours for EPA. The net change in the total annual burden hours for respondents from the previous ICR to this ICR is  426 hours ( 390  826). The net change in the total annual burden hours for EPA will be  280 hours ( 280  560).

The previous ICR estimated that the annual cost for respondents would be $ 176,858, and the annual cost for EPA would be $ 31,980. This annual burden estimate has been adjusted to a new estimate of $ 95,558 ($ 12,758 + $ 82,800) for respondents and $ 17,708 ($ 12,908 + $ 4,800) for EPA. Therefore, the net change in the cost for respondents is $ 81,300 ($ 95,558  $ 176,858). The net change in cost for EPA will be $ 14,272 ($ 17,708  $ 31,980).

Exhibit 7 summarizes the change in annual burden since the last ICR. Differences in burden and costs from the previous ICR can be attributed to adjustment changes. No program changes are associated with this renewal ICR. The adjustment changes associated with this renewal ICR are due to the following:

Decrease in burden hours due to EPA's assumption that manufacturers will apply to list 14 new oil mitigating agents on the Schedule per year over a three year period versus an estimated 28 per year during the three year period of the current ICR. 15

New dispersant effectiveness test and bioremediation agent effectiveness test cost estimates, which increased from $ 1,000 to $ 1,200 for dispersants and from $ 5,000 to $ 15,000 for bioremediation agents.

New toxicity test cost estimate of $ 3,000, down from $ 5,000.

Decrease in the number of sorbent manufacturer certification requests per year ( from 20 to 10) and in the burden estimate per respondent ( from 5 to 3 hours). ° Updated wage rates to reflect December 2002 dollars. ° Updated respondent unit labor cost estimation procedure using actual weighted wage rate estimates by labor category ( managerial, technical, and clerical) by information collection activity. This method replaced uniformly applying a weighted wage rate estimate for managerial, technical and clerical labor in the ratio of 20%, 70% and 10%, respectively, across all information collection activities.

EXHIBIT 7 Change in Total Annual Burden and Cost Burden ( Hours) Cost Respondents  426 $ 81,300 EPA  280 $ 14,272 Total  706 $ 95,572 16 6( g) Burden Statement The collection of information required to prepare and submit material for listing a product on NCP Product Schedule is estimated to have a public reporting burden of 13 to 40 hours per response in the first year and subsequent years, depending on the type of product to be listed with an average of 26 hours per response. Written certification for sorbents is estimated to have a public reporting burden of 3 hours per product. There is no recordkeeping burden associated with listing a product on the NCP Product Schedule.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA Include the EPA ICR number and the OMB control number in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64826]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27315]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-529-000]

Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP; Supplemental
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for
Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP'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 January 2, 2019.
    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
5 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 electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 12, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27315 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52423]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0276; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-5]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plattsburgh, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Plattsburg, NY, as the
Clinton County Airport has closed and controlled airspace removed. New
Class E Airspace at Plattsburgh International Airport is created to
accommodate standard instrument approach procedures developed at the
airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for the safety and
airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 7, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove controlled airspace at Clinton
County Airport, Plattsburgh, NY, due to the airport's closure, and
establish Class E airspace at Plattsburgh International Airport,
Plattsburgh, NY (78 FR 26557). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface by removing the controlled airspace for Clinton County
Airport due to the airport's closure, and creates controlled airspace
within a 12.6-mile radius of Plattsburgh International Airport,
Plattsburgh, NY. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary for the
continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace for the Plattsburgh, NY, airspace
area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Plattsburgh, NY [Amended]

Plattsburgh International Airport, NY
    (Lat. 44[deg]39'03'' N., long. 73[deg]28'05'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 12.6-mile radius of Plattsburgh International Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 16, 2013.
Kip B. Johns,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-20498 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28200-28204]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12804]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80933; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 102.01B of
the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of Companies
That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That Are Not
Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public Offering and
Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D

June 15, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 13, 2017, 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B
of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the ``Manual'') to modify the
provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing without a
prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add a Reference Price
for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B;
(iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a security is listed
under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and there has been no trading in
the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify
that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is
the subject of an initial public offering (``IPO'') or initial listing
on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B
of the Manual to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of
companies listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule
15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM
requirements when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section
102.10B and there has been no trading in the private market for such
security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a
regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an IPO or initial
listing on the Exchange
Amendments to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B
    Generally, the Exchange expects to list companies in connection
with a firm commitment underwritten IPO, upon transfer from another
market, or pursuant to a spin-off. Companies listing in connection with
an IPO must demonstrate that they have $40 million in market value of
publicly-held shares,\4\ while companies that are listing upon transfer
from another exchange or the over-the counter market or pursuant to a
spin-off must demonstrate that they have $100 million in market value
of publicly-held shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Shares held by directors, officers, or their immediate
families and other concentrated holdings of 10 percent or more are
excluded in calculating the number of publicly-held shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 102.01B currently contains a provision under which the
Exchange recognizes that some companies that have not previously had
their common equity securities registered under the Exchange Act, but
which have sold common equity securities in a private placement, may
wish to list their common equity securities on the Exchange at the time
of effectiveness of a registration statement filed solely for the
purpose of allowing existing shareholders to sell their shares.
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides that the Exchange will, on a
case by case basis, exercise discretion to list such companies. In
exercising this discretion, Footnote (E) provides that the Exchange
will determine that such company has met the $100 million aggregate
market value of publicly-held shares requirement based on a combination
of both (i) an independent third-party valuation (a ``Valuation'') of
the company and (ii) the most recent trading price for the company's
common stock in a trading system for unregistered securities operated
by a national securities exchange or a registered broker-dealer (a
``Private Placement Market''). The Exchange will attribute a market
value of publicly-held shares to the company equal to the lesser of (i)
the value calculable based on the Valuation and (ii) the value
calculable based on the most recent trading price in a Private
Placement Market.
    Any Valuation used for purposes of Footnote (E) must be provided by
an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable competence
in the provision of such valuations. The Valuation must be of a recent
date as of the time of the approval of the company for listing and the
evaluator must have considered, among other factors, the annual
financial statements required to be included in the registration
statement, along with financial statements for any completed fiscal
quarters subsequent to the end of the

last year of audited financials included in the registration statement.
The Exchange will consider any market factors or factors particular to
the listing applicant that would cause concern that the value of the
company had diminished since the date of the Valuation and will
continue to monitor the company and the appropriateness of relying on
the Valuation up to the time of listing. In particular, the Exchange
will examine the trading price trends for the stock in the Private
Placement Market over a period of several months prior to listing and
will only rely on a Private Placement Market price if it is consistent
with a sustained history over that several month period evidencing a
market value in excess of the Exchange's market value requirement. The
Exchange may withdraw its approval of the listing at any time prior to
the listing date if it believes that the Valuation no longer accurately
reflects the company's likely market value.
    While Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides for a company
listing upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration
statement, it does not make any provision for a company listing in
connection with the effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration
statement in the absence of an IPO or other Securities Act
registration. A company is able to become an Exchange Act registrant
without a concurrent public offering by filing a Form 10 (or, in the
case of a foreign private issuer, a Form 20-F) with the SEC. The
Exchange believes that it is appropriate to list companies that wish to
list immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration
statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration provided the
applicable company meets all other listing requirements. Consequently,
the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B to
explicitly provide that it applies to companies listing upon
effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a
concurrent Securities Act registration as well as to companies listing
upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement.
    The Exchange notes that the requirement of Footnote (E) that the
Exchange should rely on recent Private Placement Market trading in
addition to a Valuation may cause difficulties for certain companies
that are otherwise clearly qualified for listing. Some companies that
are clearly large enough to be suitable for listing on the Exchange do
not have their securities traded at all on a Private Placement Market
prior to going public. In other cases, the Private Placement Market
trading is too limited to provide a reasonable basis for reaching
conclusions about a company's qualification. Consequently, the Exchange
proposes to amend Footnote (E) to provide an exception to the Private
Placement Market trading requirement for companies with respect to
which there is a recent Valuation available indicating at least $250
million in market value of publicly-held shares. Adopting a requirement
that the Valuation must be at least two-and-a-half times the $100
million requirement will give a significant degree of comfort that the
market value of the company's shares will meet the standard upon
commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it is
unlikely that any Valuation would reach a conclusion that was incorrect
to the degree necessary for a company using this provision to fail to
meet the $100 million requirement upon listing, in particular because
any Valuation used for this purpose must be provided by an entity that
has significant experience and demonstrable competence in the provision
of such valuations.
    The Exchange proposes to further amend Footnote (E) by providing
that a valuation agent will not be deemed to be independent if:
     At the time it provides such valuation, the valuation
agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the
aggregate as of the date of the valuation, more than 5% of the class of
securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such
securities exercisable within 60 days.
     The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided
any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12
months preceding the date of the valuation. For purposes of this
provision, ``investment banking services'' includes, without
limitation, acting as an underwriter in an offering for the issuer;
acting as a financial adviser in a merger or acquisition; providing
venture capital, equity lines of credit, PIPEs (private investment,
public equity transactions), or similar investments; serving as
placement agent for the issuer; or acting as a member of a selling
group in a securities underwriting.
     The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been
engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant
in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or
other related transactions.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed new requirement will
provide a significant additional guarantee of the independence of any
entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E).
    The proposed amendments would enable the Exchange to compete for
listings of companies that the Exchange believes would be able to list
on the Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'') but would not be able to list
on the NYSE under its current rules. Nasdaq's initial listing rules do
not explicitly address how Nasdaq determines compliance with its
initial listing market capitalization requirements by private companies
seeking to list upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder
registration statement or Exchange Act registration without a
concurrent underwritten public offering. However, over an extended
period of time Nasdaq has listed a number of previously private
companies in conjunction with the effectiveness of a selling
shareholder registration statement without an underwritten offering. In
light of this precedent and the absence of any Nasdaq rule provision
explicitly limiting the ability of a company to qualify for listing
without a public offering or prior public market price, the Exchange
believes that Nasdaq would take the position that it could also list a
previously private company upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act
registration statement without a concurrent public offering. Therefore,
the Exchange believes that its proposed amendment would permit it to
compete on equal terms with Nasdaq for the listing of companies seeking
to list in either of these circumstances.
    The Exchange believes that it is important to have a transparent
and consistent approach to determining compliance with applicable
market capitalization requirements by previously private companies
seeking to list without a public offering and that Footnote (E) to
Section 102.01B as amended would provide such a mechanism. In the
absence of the proposed amendments, companies listing upon
effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement would have no
means of listing on the NYSE, while the Exchange believes that Nasdaq
would interpret its own rules as enabling it to list a company under
those circumstances. As such, the proposed amendment would address a
significant competitive disadvantage faced by the NYSE, while also
providing certain companies with an alternative listing venue where
none currently exists.
Proposed Amendments to NYSE Rules
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the opening of
trading to specify procedures for the opening trade on the day of
initial listing of a company that lists under the amended provisions of
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that did not

have any recent trading in a Private Placement Market before listing on
the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange proposes that the issuer must retain a
financial advisor to provide specified functions, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the proposed provision, the Exchange would
generally require an issuer to have a financial advisor if there had
been no trades on a Private Placement Market within 90 days of the
date of listing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 15
    Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (``DMM'') will
publish a pre-opening indication either (i) before a security opens if
the opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price
that represents a change of more than the ``Applicable Price Range,''
as specified in Rule 15(d), from a specified ``Reference Price,'' as
specified in Rule 15(c), or (ii) if a security has not opened by 10:00
a.m. Eastern Time. Rule 15(c)(1) specifies the Reference Price for a
security other than an American Depository Receipt, which would be
either (A) the security's last reported sale price on the Exchange; (B)
the security's offering price in the case of an IPO; or (C) the
security's last reported sale price on the securities market from which
the security is being transferred to the Exchange, on the security's
first day of trading on the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-
paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is
listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. As
proposed, the Reference Price in such scenario would be the most recent
transaction price in a Private Placement Market or, if none, a price
determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to
the issuer of such security.
Rule 104
    Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for
facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in
which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which
includes supplying liquidity as needed.\6\ The Exchange proposes to
amend Rule 104(a)(2) to specify the role of a financial adviser to an
issuer that is listing under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the
Manual and that has not had any recent trading in a Private Placement
Market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rules 15, 115A, and 123D specify the procedures for opening
securities on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, an issuer that seeks to list under Footnote (E)
to Section 102.01B and that does not have any recent Private Market
Placement trading would be required to have a financial advisor in
connection with such listing. The Exchange proposes that the DMM would
be required to consult with such financial advisor when facilitating
the open of trading of the first day of trading of such listing. This
requirement is based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which requires
that a new listing on Nasdaq that is not an IPO have a financial
advisor willing to perform the functions performed by an underwriter in
connection with pricing an IPO on Nasdaq.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Nasdaq operates an automated IPO opening process, which is
described in Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8). In contrast to the NYSE, which
has DMMs to facilitate the opening of trading, for an IPO, Nasdaq
requires that the underwriter of the IPO perform specified
functions, including (i) notifying Nasdaq that the security is ready
to trade; (ii) determining whether an IPO should be postponed; and
(iii) selecting price bands for purposes of applying Nasdaq's
automated price validation test. Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9) requires
that if a new listing does not have an underwriter, the issuer must
have a financial advisor willing to perform the above-described
functions. The functions that the underwriter/financial advisor
performs on Nasdaq as described in Rule 4120(c)(8) are not
applicable to the Exchange. The Exchange opening process does not
have a concept of ``price bands'' because, as described in Rule
115A, market orders and limit orders priced better than the opening
price are guaranteed to participate in the IPO opening. In addition,
because the Exchange does not conduct an automated opening process,
the DMM functions as an independent financial expert responsible for
facilitating the opening of trading to ensure a fair and orderly
opening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that such a financial advisor would have an
understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding shares in the
company and would have been working with the issuer to identify a
market for the securities upon listing. Such financial advisor would be
able to provide input to the DMM regarding expectations of where such a
new listing should be priced, based on pre-listing selling and buying
interest and other factors that would not be available to the DMM
through other sources.
    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule
104(a)(3) to provide that when facilitating the opening of a security
that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and
that has not had any recent trading in a Private Placement Market, the
DMM would be required to consult with a financial advisor to the issuer
of such security in order to effect a fair and orderly opening of such
security.
    Notwithstanding the proposed obligation to consult with the
financial advisor, the DMM would remain responsible for facilitating
the opening of trading of such security, and the opening of such
security must take into consideration the buy and sell orders available
on the Exchange's book in connection. Accordingly, just as a DMM is not
bound by an offering price in an IPO, and will open such a security at
a price dictated by the buying and selling interest entered on the
Exchange in that security, a DMM would not be bound by the input he or
she receives from the financial advisor.
Rule 123D
    The Exchange further proposes to amend its rules to provide
authority to declare a regulatory halt for a new listing. As proposed,
Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a regulatory
halt in a security that is the subject of: (1) An initial public
offering on the Exchange; or (2) an initial pricing on the Exchange of
a security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange
or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211
(``OTC market'') immediately prior to the initial pricing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange proposes to re-number current Rule 123D(d) as
Rule 123D(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 123D(d)(1) is based on Nasdaq Rule 4120(a)(7), which
provides that Nasdaq may halt trading in a security that is the subject
of an IPO on Nasdaq.
    Proposed Rule 123D(d)(2) is based in part on Nasdaq Rule
4120(c)(9), which provides that the process for halting and initial
pricing of a security that is the subject of an IPO on Nasdaq is also
available for the initial pricing of any other security that has not
been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the OTC
market immediately prior to the initial public offering, provided that
a broker-dealer serving in the role of financial advisor to the issuer
of the securities being listed is willing to perform the functions
under Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) that areperformed by an underwriter with
respect to an initial public offering.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange believes that the correct cross reference
should be to Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8)(B). Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(8)
specifies Nasdaq procedures for how it conducts its crossing trade
following a trading halt declared for an IPO on Nasdaq, including
the role of an underwriter in determining when an IPO may be
released for trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 123D(d)(2) would provide authority for the Exchange
to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is having its initial
listing on the Exchange, is not an IPO, and has not been listed on a
national securities exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately
prior to the initial pricing (``non-IPO listing''). The Exchange does
not propose to include the last clause of Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9) in
proposed Rule 123D(d)(2). Rather, as described above, the Exchange
proposes to address the role of a financial advisor to an

issuer in specified circumstances in Rule 104(a)(3).
    The Exchange believes that it would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest for the Exchange, as a
primary listing exchange, to have to authority to declare a regulatory
halt for security that is the subject of an IPO or a non-IPO listing.
For example, the Exchange believes that it would be consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest for the Exchange to
have the authority to declare a regulatory halt if there is a systems
or technology issue in connection with the opening IPO transaction.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \10\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ 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
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposed rule change would foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in clearing and
settling transactions in securities, thereby facilitating such
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal to permit companies listing upon effectiveness of an
Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public
offering or Securities Act registration is designed to protect
investors and the public interest, because such companies will be
required to meet all of the same quantitative requirements met by other
listing applicants. The proposal to amend Footnote (E) to Section
102.01B of the Manual to allow companies to avail themselves of that
provision without any reliance on Private Placement Market trading is
designed to protect investors and the public interest because any
company relying solely on a valuation to demonstrate compliance with
the market value of publicly-held shares requirement will be required
to demonstrate a market value of publicly-held shares of $250 million,
rather than the $100 million that is generally applicable. The proposal
to include a definition of valuation agent independence in Footnote (E)
is consistent with the protection of investors, as it ensures that any
entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E) will have a
significant level of independence from the listing applicant.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 15 and
104 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system because the proposed rule
changes would specify requirements relating to the opening of a trading
of a security that would be listed under the proposed amended text of
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. The proposed amendments
to Exchange rules are designed to provide DMMs with information to
assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new listing under
the amended provisions of the Manual. Rule 15 would be amended to
specify the Reference Price that the DMM would use for purposes of
determining whether a pre-opening indication is required and Rule 104
would be amended to provide that the DMM will consult with a financial
advisor when facilitating the opening of a security that is listed
under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not
had any recent trading in a Private Placement Market.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 123D to
provide authority to declare a regulatory halt in a security subject to
an IPO on non-IPO listing would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because it would provide the Exchange with authority to halt trading
across all markets for a security that has not previously listed on the
Exchange, but for which a regulatory halt would promote fair and
orderly markets. The proposed rule change would also align halt rule
authority among primary listing exchanges. The Exchange further
believes that having the authority to declare a regulatory halt for a
security that is the subject of an IPO or non-IPO listing is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest and would
promote fair and orderly markets by helping to protect against
volatility in pricing and initial trading of unseasoned securities.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment to
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual will impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purpose of the Exchange Act. Rather, the proposed rule change will
increase competition for new listings by enabling companies to list
that meet all quantitative requirements but are currently unable to
list because of the methodology required by the current rules to
demonstrate their compliance.
    As noted above, Nasdaq's listing rules do not include explicit
limitations applicable to the listing of companies in these
circumstances. Additionally, Nasdaq has listed previously private
companies upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration
statement without a concurrent underwritten offering on several
occasions in the past. In light of this precedent and the absence of
any Nasdaq rule provision explicitly limiting the ability of a company
to qualify for listing without a public offering or prior public market
price, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would take the position that
it could also list a previously private company upon effectiveness of
an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public
offering. As such, the proposed amendment to Footnote (E) to Section
102.01B of the Manual would increase competition by enabling the NYSE
to compete with Nasdaq for these listings.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to its
Rule Book will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the changes are not related to
competition, but rather are designed to promote fair and orderly
markets in a manner that is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest. The proposed changes do not impact the ability
of any market participant or trading venue to compete.

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 up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
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 the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2017-30 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12804 Filed 6-19-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41745-41747]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17784]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0546; FRL-9438-9]

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 (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
the manufacture of polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene
products. We are proposing action on a local rule that regulates these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0546, 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
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 at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
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. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule.
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule
4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products
Manufacturing, amended on September 20, 2007, and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) on March 7, 2008. On April 17,
2008, the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 was found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4682 into the SIP on June
13, 1995 (60 FR 31086).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 4682 was
designed to reduce emissions of VOCs from the manufacturing,
processing, and storage of products composed of polystyrene,
polyethylene, or polypropylene. 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 CAA section 110(a)),
and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
document as well as each major source in

nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)). The
SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
Rule 4682 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently 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. ``Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing''
(EPA-450/3-90-020, September 1990).
    4. ``Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits--SIP
Revision Policy,'' memorandum from John R. O'Connor, OAQPS, dated
January 20, 1984.
    Additionally, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA (see CAA section 110(l))
or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control
requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (see CAA section 193).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 4682 improves the SIP by clarifying language, adding
definitions, and adding control requirements. This rule also improves
the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, recordkeeping, and
testing. The rule is generally clear and contains appropriate
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure the
emission limits are adequately enforceable. The rule is largely
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. We are proposing to determine
that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section
110(l), because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the
on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are met, and the
submitted SIP revision is at least as stringent as the rule previously
approved into the SIP. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation
criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    Rule 4682 contains a monthly averaging provision that conflicts
with CAA section 110 and part D, and prevents full approval of the SIP
revision. Section 5.3.1 of Rule 4682 establishes an emission limit of
2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total material processed, as
averaged on a monthly basis. EPA generally cannot approve compliance
periods exceeding 24 hours unless specific criteria are met, including
a clear explanation of why the application of RACT is not economically
or technically feasible on a daily basis. Rules for this source
category in other districts contain similar limits without the monthly
averaging. A more detailed discussion of this deficiency is contained
in the TSD.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, 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 CAA section 110(k)(3). If this
disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under CAA section
179 unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would
be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also
trigger the 2-year clock for the federal implementation plan
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. The limited disapproval
also would not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated
by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July
9, 1992, EPA memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf.
    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 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 or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new
requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal SIP
limited approval/limited disapproval 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. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
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 limited approval/limited disapproval
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 and disapprove 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 proposes to approve or disapprove 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.'' 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.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-17784 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P