We did not propose specific provisions for nonroad diesel fuel distributors and marketers in the NPRM. During the SBREFA process, distributors commented that they would support a onestep approach to eliminate the possibility of having multiple grades of fuel in the distribution system and the Panel recommended that we further study this issue during the development of the rule.

iv. Additional Panel Recommendations Some, but not all, Panel members recommended that the following provisions be included in the NPRM; we requested comment on these items but did not propose them: ° the inclusion of a technological review of the standards in the 2008 time frame ° no PM aftertreatment based standards for engines between 25 and 75 hp b. Discussion of Items Being Finalized in Today's Action i. Provisions for Small Business Engine Manufacturers For nonroad diesel small business engine manufacturers, we are finalizing many of the provisions set out above with some significant revisions, as described below. We are finalizing all of the hardship provisions that we proposed. We believe these provisions are an element of providing appropriate lead time for this class of engines.

For engines under 25 hp: ° PM a manufacturer may elect to delay compliance with the standard for up to three years. ° NOx there is no change in the existing NO X standard for engines in this category, so no special provisions are being provided.

For engines in the 25 to 50 hp category: ° PM manufacturers must comply with the interim standards ( the Tier 4 requirements that begin in model year 2008) on time, and may elect to delay compliance with the 2013 Tier 4 requirements ( 0.02 g/ bhp hr PM standard) for up to three years. ° NOx a manufacturer may elect to delay compliance with the standard for up to three years. 254 As the cost issues raised in SBA's comments relate to all manufacturers ( not just small business manufacturers), further information on the costs of this technology as well as the benefits analysis, can be found in section VI of this preamble ( and also chapters 6 and 9, respectively, of the Regulatory Impact Analysis).

472 For engines in the 50 to 75 hp category: ° PM A small business engine manufacturer may delay compliance with the 2013 Tier 4 requirement of 0.02 g/ bhp hr PM for up to three years provided that it complies with the interim Tier 4 requirements that begin in model year 2008 on time, without the use of credits ( as manufacturers of engines in this category still have the option to comply with the Tier 3 standard). Alternatively, a manufacturer may elect to skip the interim standard completely. Manufacturers choosing this option will receive only one additional year for compliance with the 0.02 g/ bhp hr standard ( i. e. compliance in 2013, rather than 2012). ° NO X  there is no change in the NO X standard for engines in this category, therefore no special provisions are being provided.

For engines in the 75 to 175 hp category: ° PM a manufacturer may elect to delay compliance with the standard for up to three years. ° NOx a manufacturer may elect to delay compliance with the standard for up to three years.

In regard to the Office of Advocacy's concern regarding the technical feasibility of PM and NO X aftertreatment devices, as proposed in the NPRM, we are not adopting standards based on performance of NO X aftertreatment technologies for engines under 75 hp. We believe the factual record   as documented in the RIA, the Summary and Analysis of Comments, and this preamble   does not support the claim that the PM standards will not be technically feasible in 2013 for the 25 75 hp engines. As set out at length in section 4.1.3 of the RIA, among other places, performance of PM traps is not dependent on engine size.

We disagree with the statement made by the Office of Advocacy that, based on available information, we do not have a sufficient basis for engines between 25 and 75 hp to be subject to PM standards based on use of advanced aftertreatment. As we have documented earlier and in the RIA, we believe that such standards are feasible for these engines at reasonable cost, 254 and will help to improve very important air quality problems, especially by reducing exposure to diesel PM and by aiding in attainment of the PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. See generally, comment response 8.2.3 of the Summary and Analysis of Comments, and sections <IP_ADDRESS>.9 and <IP_ADDRESS>.10 of chapter 12 of the Draft RIA. These standards will also result in significant reductions of NMHC, which includes many carcinogenic air toxics. Indeed, given these facts, we are skeptical that an alternative of no aftertreatment based PM standards for these engines would be appropriate under section 213( a)( 4) of the Clean Air Act ( see section VII. A above, where we 473 found that "[ w] e ... do not see a basis in law or policy to adopt either of these options"). We believe that the transition and hardship provisions being finalized for small business engine manufacturers in today's action are reasonable and are a factor in our ultimate finding that the PM standards for engines in the 25   75 hp range are appropriate.

ii. Provisions for Small Business Equipment Manufacturers The transition and hardship provisions that were proposed for small business nonroad equipment manufacturers are being finalized today, with some modifications.

Adopting an alternative on which we solicited comment, the final rule allows all equipment manufacturers the opportunity to choose between two options: a) manufacturers would be allowed to exempt 700 pieces of equipment over seven years, with one engine family; or b) manufacturers using the small volume allowance could exempt 525 machines over seven years ( with a maximum of 150 in any given year) for each of the three power categories below 175 horsepower, and 350 machines over seven years ( with a maximum of 100 in any given year) for the two power categories above 175 horsepower. Concurrent with the revised caps, manufacturers could exempt engines from more than one engine family under the small volume allowance program. Based on sales information for small businesses, we estimated that the alternative small volume allowance program to include lower caps and allow manufacturers to exempt more than one engine family would keep the total number of engines eligible for the allowance at roughly the same overall level as the 700 unit program. We believe that these provisions will afford small manufacturers the type of transition leeway recommended by the Panel. Further, these transition provisions could allow small business equipment manufacturers to postpone any redesign needed on low sales volume or difficult equipment packages, thus saving both money and strain on limited engineering staffs. Within limits, small business equipment manufacturers would be able to continue to use their current engine/ equipment configuration and avoid out of cycle equipment redesign until the allowances are exhausted or the time limit passes.

We are not finalizing the requirement that small equipment manufacturers and importers have reported equipment sales using certified engines in model year 2002 or earlier. Please see section III. C. 2. a. ii above for a detailed discussion on our decision to eliminate this requirement from today's rule.

We are also finalizing three additional provisions today. Two of these provisions are being finalized for all equipment manufacturers, and therefore small business equipment manufacturers may also take advantage of them. These are the Technical Hardship Provision and the Early Tier 4 Engine Incentive Program, and are discussed in greater detail in sections III. B. 2. b and e above. The third provision is being finalized for small business equipment manufacturers only, for the 20 50 hp category. This provision is discussed in greater detail in section III. C. 2. b. ii above. 255 Since new engines with sulfur sensitive emission controls will begin to become widespread during this time, small refiner fuel will need to be segregated and only supplied for use in pre 2011 nonroad equipment or in locomotives or marine engines.

474 iii. Provisions for Small Refiners As previously discussed, we are finalizing standards for locomotive and marine diesel fuel today. Below are the regulatory transition and hardship provisions that we are finalizing to minimize the degree of hardship imposed upon small refiners by this program. With these provisions we are confident about going forward with the 500 ppm sulfur standard for NRLM diesel fuel in 2007, and the 15 ppm sulfur standard for nonroad diesel fuel in 2010 and locomotive and marine diesel fuel in 2012, for the rest of the industry. Given the small refiner relief provisions that are being finalized today, small refiners will be the only refiners permitted to continue selling 500 ppm fuel to nonroad, locomotive, and marine markets from 2010 until 2014 without the use of credits.

We are finalizing delayed compliance for small refiners today (" NRLM Delay" option). We are confident with going forward with these sulfur standards given the regulatory transition provisions being offered for small refiners. These delayed standards would allow for the continued production of higher sulfur NRLM fuel until June 1, 2010, and similarly, for the production of 500 ppm NRLM fuel until June 1, 2014.255 This is identical to the relief proposed in the NPRM ( which small refiners considered sufficient and supported) with the exception that it applies not only to nonroad fuel, but also to locomotive and marine fuel given the decision to finalize 15 ppm sulfur standards for locomotive and marine diesel fuel. Table X. C 2 below illustrates the delayed standards in relation to the general program. This delay option is not being finalized for the Northeast and mid Atlantic areas due to the removal of the heating oil marker in these areas. However this is not expected to impact small refiners, and this will provide significant relief for small terminal operators. Further, this provision will be finalized in Alaska only if a refiner gets an approved compliance plan for segregating their fuel to the end user.

We also are finalizing transition provisions to encourage early compliance with the standards being finalized today. These provisions are:

° The NRLM credit option Some small refiners have indicated that they might need to produce fuel meeting the NRLM diesel fuel sulfur standards earlier than required under the small refiner program described above ( distribution systems might limit the number of grades of diesel fuel that will be carried, it may be economically advantageous to make compliant NRLM diesel fuel earlier to prevent losing market share, etc.) This option allows small refiners to participate in the NRLM diesel fuel sulfur credit banking and trading program discussed in section IV. Generating and selling 256 This is down from the 100 percent requirement proposed to allow for some contamination losses in the process of delivering fuel from the refinery. As discussed earlier in this section, production volumes in the final rule are based upon actual delivered volumes. The 5 percent allowance for greater than 15 ppm fuel should provide adequate flexibility for any refiner's contamination issues, while not providing any opportunity to significantly alter their compliance plans.

475 credits could provide small refiners with funds to help defray the costs of early NRLM compliance. ° The NRLM/ Gasoline Compliance Option This option is available to small refiners that produce greater than 95 percent of their NRLM diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard by June 1, 2006 and elect not to use the provision described above to earn NRLM diesel fuel sulfur credits for this early compliance. 256 For small refiners choosing this option the applicable small refiner annual average and per gallon cap gasoline sulfur standards will be increased by 20 percent for the duration of the interim program; however, in no case may the per gallon gasoline sulfur cap exceed 450 ppm.

A small refiner may choose to use the relaxed standards ( the NRLM Delay option), the NRLM Credit option, or both in combination. Thus any fuel that it produces from crude at or below the sulfur standards earlier than required will qualify for generating credits. However, the NRLM/ Gasoline Compliance option may not be used in combination with either the NRLM Delay option or the NRLM Credit option, since a small refiner must produce at least 85 percent of its NRLM diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard under the NRLM/ Gasoline Compliance option.

Small refiners that choose to make use of the delayed nonroad diesel sulfur requirements would also delay to some extent the emission reductions that would otherwise have been achieved. However, the overall impact of these postponed emission reductions would be small in comparison to the overall program benefits, as small refiners represent only a fraction of national non highway diesel production. Further, we are aware of some small refiners that plan to take advantage of one of the flexibility provisions that encourages early compliance with the standards. Absent specific provisions for small refiners, we would have to consider delaying the overall program until the burden of the program on many small refiners was diminished, which would delay the air quality benefits of the overall program. By providing temporary relief to small refiners, we are able to adopt a program that expeditiously reduces NRLM diesel fuel sulfur levels in a feasible manner for the industry as a whole. 257 The cost to sales ratio test assumes that control costs are completely absorbed by each entity and does not account for or consider interaction between manufacturers/ producers and consumers in a market context.

476 Table X. C 2.   Sulfur Standards for the Nonroad Diesel Fuel Small Refiner Program ( in parts per million ( ppm)) a 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+

Non Small NR  500 500 500 15 15 15 15 15 15 Non Small LM  500 500 500 500 500 15 15 15 15 Small all fuel     500 500 500 500 15 15 Notes: a New standards are assumed to take effect June 1 of the applicable year.

iv. Provisions for Small Distributors and Fuel Marketers Though we did not propose any specific regulatory relief for small distributors and marketers of nonroad fuel, we are finalizing provisions to avoid the negative impact to small terminal operators raised in the public comments on our NPRM ( that heating oil marker requirements would force small terminal operators to install expensive injection equipment and that they would not be able to recoup the costs). To mitigate the burden on these operators, terminals in much of PADD 1 will not have to add the fuel marker to home heating oil. No small refiner or credit fuel could be sold in this exclusion area. The exclusion area covers the vast majority of heating oil that will be marketed. Further, very little fuel above 500 ppm will be marketed outside of the exclusion area except directly from the refinery gate. Therefore, we expect that few terminals outside of the exclusion area would need to put in injection equipment.

6. Conclusion A cost to sales ratio test, a ratio of the estimated annualized compliance costs to the value of sales per company, was performed for these entities during the proposal stage of the rulemaking. 257 From this cost to sales test, we found that approximately four percent ( 13 companies) of small entities in the engine and equipment manufacturing industry would be affected by between one and three percent of sales ( i. e., the estimated costs of compliance with the rule would be greater than one percent, but less than three percent, of their sales). One percent ( four companies) of small entities would be affected by greater than three percent. In all, 17 of the 518 potentially affected small engine and equipment manufacturers are estimated to have compliance costs that could exceed one percent of their sales. ( A complete discussion of the costs to engine and equipment manufacturers as a result of this final rule is located in Chapter 6 of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.) 477 Based on our outreach, fact finding, and analysis of the potential impacts of our regulations on small businesses, it was determined that small refiners in general would likely experience a significant and disproportionate financial hardship in reaching the objectives of the nonroad diesel fuel sulfur program. One indication of this disproportionate hardship for small refiners is the relatively high cost per gallon projected for producing nonroad diesel fuel under the proposed program. Refinery modeling ( of all refineries), indicates significantly higher refining costs for small refiners. Specifically, without special provisions, refining costs ( for full compliance with the 15 ppm sulfur standards) for small refiners on average would be about 7 cents per gallon compared to about 5.7 cents per gallon for non small refiners. ( A complete discussion of the fuel related costs as a result of this final rule is located in Chapter 7 of the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis.) However, we believe that the regulatory transition provisions that we are affording to small entities will significantly minimize this impact on these entities.

In addition, as contemplated by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA is also preparing a compliance guide to help small entities comply with this rule. This guide will be available within 60 days of the effective publication date of this rulemaking, and will be available on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality website. Small entities may also contact our office to obtain copies of the compliance guide.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law. 104 4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 478 This rule contains no federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

EPA has determined that this rule contains federal mandates that may result in expenditures of more than $ 100 million to the private sector in any single year. EPA believes that the final rule represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to achieve the air quality goals of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with the final rule are discussed above and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, as required by the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 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 section 6 of 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.

Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications ( i. e., the rules 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). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.

This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 479 Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted representatives from STAPPA/ ALAPCO, which represents state and local air pollution officials.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials, including from the State of Alaska.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 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 final rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance costs only on engine manufacturers and diesel fuel producers and distributors. Tribal governments will be affected only to the extent they purchase and use equipment with regulated engines. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5   501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. The EPA believes that the emissions reductions from the strategies proposed in this rulemaking will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 480 Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as " significant energy actions." Section 4( b) of Executive Order 13211 defines " significant energy actions" as " any action by an agency ( normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: ( 1)( i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and ( ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or ( 2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action." We have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows:

We have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows.

This rule's potential adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use have been analyzed, and are discussed in detail within the following documents:

1. Fuel provisions of the rule and flexibilities, including hardship provisions, are described in this Preamble, section IV. B. The provision of sufficient lead time for refiners is discussed in section IV. F. 2. Potential impacts on fuel supplies are summarized in Preamble section VI. A. 5, RIA section VI. A. 5, and within the Summary and Analysis of Comments document, section 4.6.3. 3. Costs of low sulfur fuel are discussed in Preamble section VI. F, and RIA Chapter 7 ( demand and production in 7.1, and refining costs in 7.2). 4. Price impacts are summarized in Preamble section VI. A, and RIA section 7.6, with distribution costs in section 7.4, alternative estimates of costs in 7.2, and effects of alternative demand projections in 7.2 as well. Uncertainty in fuel demand is also discussed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments section <IP_ADDRESS>. 5. The need for adequate short term investment in low sulfur refining capacity is addressed in RIA section 5.9. 6. The impacts of regulatory alternatives that were considered are discussed in Preamble section VII.

In summary, the cost of No. 2 distillate nonroad fuel is projected to increase overall by approximately 7 cents per gallon ( in 2002 dollar terms) as a result of this rule. This would have a very small effect on production ( projected reduction of approximately 0.02 %, or less than 4 million gallons per year by 2036).

The analysis also concludes that we do not expect this rule to have any adverse effect on the supply or distribution of NRLM fuel, nor to result in a significant increase in imports of NRLM 481 fuel. Refiners will be unlikely to leave the NRLM fuel market and are unlikely to shut down due to this rule.

Price impacts will vary regionally in the U. S., and are difficult to project precisely. Analysis of various scenarios in RIA section 7.6 suggests that in PADDs 1 and 3 as well as 2, which account for the bulk of demand, prices could increase by almost 11 cents per gallon in the unlikely " maximum total cost" scenario of constrained capacity. In contrast, the " average total cost" scenario predicts a 5 cent per gallon increase in PADDs 1 and 3.

We do not believe there are any reasonable alternatives to the control of sulfur in nonroad fuel which would allow the reduction in NO X and PM emissions from nonroad equipment required by today's rule. There are also no reasonable alternatives to the control of sulfur in locomotive and marine fuel which would provide the associated reductions in sulfur dioxide and sulfate PM emissions provided by the 500 and 15 ppm caps on the sulfur content of this fuel.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This rule involves technical standards. The following paragraph describes how we specify testing procedures for engines subject to this proposal.

The International Organization for Standardization ( ISO) has a voluntary consensus standard that can be used to test nonroad diesel engines. However, the current version of that standard ( ISO 8178) is applicable only for steady state testing, not for transient testing. As described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, transient testing is an important part of the new emission control program for these engines. We are therefore not adopting the ISO procedures in this rulemaking.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. 482 House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before the rule is published in the Federal Register. This rule is a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). 483 XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority Statutory authority for the engine controls adopted today can be found in sections 213 ( which specifically authorizes controls on emissions from nonroad engines and vehicles), 203  209, 216 and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U. S. C. 7547, 7522, 7523, 7424, 7525, 7541,7542, 7543, 7550 and 7601.

Statutory authority for the new fuel controls is found in sections 211 ( c) and 211 ( i) of the Clean Air Act, which allow EPA to regulate fuels that either contribute to air pollution which endangers public health or welfare or which impair emission control equipment which is in general use or has been in general use. 42 U. S. C. 7545 ( c) and ( i). Additional support for the procedural and enforcement related aspects of the fuel controls in the final rule, including the record keeping requirements, comes from sections 114 ( a) and 301 ( a) of the CAA. 42 U. S. C. sections 7414 ( a) and 7601 ( a). 484 List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 9 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 69 Environmental protection, Air pollution controls.

40 CFR Part 80 Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 89 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Vessels, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 94 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1039, 1048, and 1051 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1065 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research. 485 40 CFR Part 1068 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties.

Dated_____________

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY MICHAEL LEAVITT MAY 11, 2004 ___________________________________ Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64456-64457]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2388-004]

City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department; Notice of
Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting
Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2388-004.
    c. Date filed: August 31, 2016.
    d. Applicant: City of Holyoke Gas and Electric Department.
    e. Name of Project: Holyoke Number 3 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Between the second and third level canals on the
Holyoke Canal System adjacent to the Connecticut River, in the city of
Holyoke in Hampden County, Massachusetts. The project does not occupy
federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, Superintendent, City of
Holyoke Gas and Electric Department, 99 Suffolk Street, Holyoke, MA
01040,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kyle Olcott,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: October 31, 2016.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2388-004.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The existing Holyoke Number 3 project consists of: (1) A 52-
foot-3-inch long by 14-foot-high intake trashrack covering an opening
in the Second Level Canal fed by the Holyoke Canal System (licensed
under FERC Project No. 2004); (2) two 11-foot-high by 11-foot-wide
headgates; (3) two 85-foot-long, 93-square-foot in cross section low
pressure brick penstocks; (4) a 42-foot-long by 34-foot-wide by 28-
foot-high reinforced concrete powerhouse with one 450-kilowatt turbine
generator unit;

(5) a 29.7-foot-wide, 10-foot-deep, 118-foot-long open tailrace
discharging into the Third Level Canal; and, (6) 4.8-kilovolt generator
leads that connect directly to the 4.8-kilovolt area distribution
system; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to
generate 2,119,000 kilowatt-hours annually.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing
Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter--October 2016
Request Additional Information--October 2016
Issue Acceptance Letter--January 2017
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments--February 2017
Request Additional Information (if necessary)--April 2017
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--May 2017
Notice that application is ready for environmental analysis--May 2017
Notice of the availability of the draft EA--November 2017
Notice of the availability of the final EA--February 2018

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: September 14, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22606 Filed 9-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41279-41284]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16428]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002; FRL-9695-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited approval of the Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan (SIP) (hereafter RH SIP) revision submitted
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania). EPA is taking this
action because Pennsylvania's SIP revision, as a whole, strengthens the
Pennsylvania SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules for states to
prevent and remedy future and existing anthropogenic impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas

through a regional haze program. EPA is also approving this revision as
meeting the infrastructure requirements relating to visibility
protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0002. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
Commonwealth's submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On January 26, 2012, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania (77 FR 3984). The NPR
proposed limited approval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) on December 20, 2010. This revision also meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J), relating
to visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision includes a long term strategy with enforceable
measures ensuring reasonable progress towards meeting the reasonable
progress goals for the first planning period through 2018.
Pennsylvania's RH SIP contains the emission reductions needed to
achieve Pennsylvania's share of emission reductions for the Class I
areas they impact. The specific requirements of the CAA and EPA's
Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35714, July 1, 1999) and the rationale for
EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and are not restated
here. EPA received several adverse comments and one letter of support
on the January 26, 2012 NPR. One of those adverse comments requested a
change to PADEP's best available retrofit technology (BART)
determination for GenOn Energy's Cheswick Generating Station.
Pennsylvania can revise this determination in a future SIP revision to
address comments raised by GenOn Energy. A summary of the comments
submitted and EPA's responses are provided in section III of this
document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP on January
26, 2012 with a docket that includes most of the RH SIP submission from
PADEP except Appendix Z, which is the comment and response document.
    Response: PADEP did not submit an Appendix Z, nor was it referenced
in the rulemaking. The PADEP comment and response document is Appendix
AA and can be found in the EPA docket for this action, docket No. EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0002.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania has 15 BART-
eligible electric generating units (EGUs) that include 28 individual
units that are among the largest uncontrolled sources for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The
commenter claimed PADEP did not conduct any five-step determinations
for BART at these EGUs for NOX and SO2. It relied
upon the pending ``cross state air pollution rule (CSAPR) Better than
BART'' determination.
    Response: In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval
of Pennsylvania's RH SIP based on its reliance on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). EPA did not propose to find that participation
in the Transport Rule\1\ is an alternative to BART in this action. EPA
addressed these comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART
alternative in a final action that was published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642). EPA's response to these comments can be found in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Transport Rule is also known as the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and was proposed by EPA to help states reduce
air pollution and attain CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2,
2010) (proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter stated that BART determinations must
consider filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable
PM. The commenter stated that the PADEP BART determinations are
expressed in total PM, but the cost analyses were conducted based on
filterable PM10. The commenter requested EPA to disapprove
PADEP's determinations and adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits for
filterable PM10, PM2.5 and condensable PM because
PADEP set BART limits for filterable PM10 and filterable PM.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the PM BART limits
should be disapproved. The controls on the facilities considered by
PADEP for the emission limits in the BART determinations are effective
in reducing filterable and condensable particulates. Separate emission
limits for each are not required for BART.
    Comment: The commenter claimed PADEP's BART determinations and
EPA's proposed approval of these determinations are fundamentally
flawed, arbitrary, and unlawful. The commenter stated that source-
specific process design information is required to make BART
determinations which PADEP did not provide. One commenter stated
PADEP's BART determinations were fundamentally flawed for steps one
through four of the BART determination process. The commenter stated
the flaw in step one was that PADEP did not address all available
technologies for each BART determination. The commenter stated the flaw
in step two was that PADEP did not appropriately interpret technical
feasibility of control options in accordance with the Guidelines for
BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40
CFR part 51 (hereafter the BART Rule). See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
The commenter stated the flaw in step three was that PADEP did not rank
the control effectiveness for all EGU and most non-EGU BART
determinations. The commenter stated the flaw in step four was that
PADEP eliminated technologies based on non-air quality environmental
impacts that are common throughout the industry.
    Response: Congress crafted the CAA to provide for states to take
the lead in developing implementation plans but balanced that decision
by requiring EPA to review the plans to determine whether a SIP meets
the requirements of the CAA. In undertaking such a review, EPA does not
usurp a state's authority

but ensures that such authority is reasonably exercised. BART
determinations under the regional haze program are the responsibility
of the states, which have the freedom to determine the weight and
significance of the statutorily required five-factors in a BART
determination. EPA then reviews a state's determination as included in
its regional haze plan. Pennsylvania performed the required BART
determinations for its BART-eligible sources. In Appendix J of its RH
SIP submittal, Pennsylvania considered the required five-factors and
explained its conclusions for each specific source. As identified in
Appendix J, Pennsylvania performed its BART determinations evaluating
the five-factors required. Appendix J describes the steps Pennsylvania
took in evaluating BART and provides a basis for Pennsylvania's BART
determinations based on those five- factors. The modeling of source
impacts and technology reviews for specific source categories can be
found in Pennsylvania's Appendices I, P and Q respectively, which
support Pennsylvania's BART determinations found in Appendix J. EPA
determined that PADEP did address all available technologies and
appropriately determined technical feasibility of those technologies.
The ranking of control technologies is not a requirement of step three
(evaluating the control effectiveness) in BART determinations. The
evaluation of non-air quality impacts as part of step four of the BART
determination should be made based on a consideration of the specific
circumstances of that source, so the same technology may have a
different degree of impact dependent on the source. EPA determined that
PADEP did address step four for the BART determinations in accordance
with the BART Rule.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the PM limit for EGUs is invalid
for BART. Pennsylvania used an outdated 0.1 pound per million British
thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) limit for filterable PM. The proposed BART
limit is much higher than accepted as BART (or as best available
control technology known as BACT), and much higher than levels
currently being achieved at many other similar facilities.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the PM BART limits are invalid. While
BACT is similar to BART, BACT has a four factor analysis of
environmental impact, energy consumption, economic impact, and other
costs. BART determinations however involve a five factor analysis of
all technologies available for retrofit, consideration of current
control technologies, cost of compliance of controls, remaining useful
life of the facility, energy and non air-quality environmental impacts,
and visibility impacts. BART is not a required top-down evaluation like
BACT. As stated in the BART Rule, the states should retain the
discretion to evaluate control options in whatever order they choose,
so long as the state explains its analysis of the CAA factors. PADEP
did address each of the five factors in its BART determination
summaries in Appendix J of the PADEP December 20, 2010 RH SIP
submittal. Because BART and BACT involve different evaluations, EPA
believes it is reasonable to have different outcomes and different
limits for each review. The specific BACT limits cited by the commenter
cannot automatically be considered valid for BART.
    Comment: BART guidelines provide that maximum available control
technology (MACT) for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) should be taken
into account for determining BART as stated in 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y, Section IV.C. The commenter stated that Pennsylvania EGUs are
subject to EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS Rule) which was
published on February 16, 2012 (77 FR 9304). The commenter stated that
EPA must take these requirements into account in approving any BART
determination because all statutory factors should be included. The
commenter stated that PADEP's BART determinations for PM limits of 0.1
lb/MMBtu cannot be approved because those limits are much higher than
the 0.03 lb/MMBtu limit in the final MATS Rule as a surrogate limit for
non-mercury metal HAPs.
    Response: EPA agrees that we do require all statutory factors to be
included in the BART determinations that are applicable at the time the
determinations are done. EPA cannot require BART determinations to
predict future requirements and to include those as BART. When EPA
issues new rules, the states must adopt them as appropriate. The final
MATS Rule was promulgated after the proposed limited approval of the PM
BART determinations in the Pennsylvania RH SIP on January 26, 2012.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA claimed it included all
BART-eligible sources in the CSAPR Better-than-BART analysis, but the
analysis omitted the BART-eligible oil-fired EGUs as identified by
PADEP. These facilities in Pennsylvania are Trigen/Edison Station Units
3 and 4; Trigen/Schuylkill Station Unit 26; Eddystone Units 3 and 4;
and Martins Creek Units 3 and 4. EPA's CSAPR Better-than-BART analysis
compared projected EGU emissions at the presumptive EGU BART limits to
projected emissions under CSAPR. EPA then modeled these scenarios
against the 2014 baseline that excludes both BART and CSAPR. The
visibility benefits from this modeling were then averaged across all
Class I areas. The commenter stated that EPA claims this analysis shows
that CSAPR will result in more emissions reductions than BART and cites
to 76 FR 82225. The commenter claimed that CSAPR will not achieve
greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than
source-specific BART for EGUs in Pennsylvania. Even if CSAPR could
lawfully substitute for BART, the commenter claimed the instant
rulemaking would have to include separate NOX and
SO2 BART determinations for Pennsylvania EGUs because CSAPR
does not in fact perform better than BART.
    Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA's response to comments concerning the ``CSAPR is Better-than-BART''
action can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at
www.regulations.gov.
    Comment: The commenter stated that PADEP evaluated step five of the
BART determinations in a piecemeal fashion, considering the visibility
impact to each Class I area separately and determined controls based on
the most highly impacted Class I area. PADEP's approach resulted in
significantly underestimating visibility improvements compared to
implementing BART for PA sources. Most of the BART-eligible sources are
clustered in the southwest corner of the state, near four Class I
areas. Most of the remaining BART-eligible sources are clustered in the
southeast region of the state, near Brigantine Class I area, with
Montour in the middle of the state. The federal land managers (FLMs)
made similar comments on the draft Pennsylvania RH SIP. PADEP responded
that the BART Rule does not require a ``cumulative'' impact analysis
and stated that EPA has provided no guidance on this issue. The
commenter disagreed and stated that the BART Rule is clear that
multiple sources and Class I areas are to be considered. The commenter
cited to 70 FR 39161-62. The commenter claimed EPA recommended that
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) consider
calculating the visibility improvement at multiple Class I areas.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment in general. The BART Rule
pages referred to by the commenter

address determining whether a facility is BART-eligible and not the
applicable approach defined later in the guidelines for BART-subject
sources. EPA agrees with PADEP that the BART Rule does not require a
``cumulative'' impact analysis as part of the BART determination for a
specific source. The guidelines do give the option to evaluate
cumulative impacts to multiple Class I areas which EPA does recommend
but does not require the state to do. As noted by the language used by
EPA to NDEQ, we recommend consideration of the cumulative approach.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the PADEP source-specific
analyses in Appendix J rejected every single control option as not cost
effective using one or both of the following two measures: dollar per
ton or dollar per deciview. However, no significance thresholds were
established for either. The FLMs also commented on this issue during
the PADEP review process. PADEP's response to the FLMs was that it did
not establish or use ``bright line thresholds for cost or for
visibility improvement in making BART determinations'' in Appendix AA
of the Pennsylvania RH SIP submittal. The commenter noted that based on
determinations in other states, the acceptable cost effectiveness value
ranges from $5,000 per ton to $10,000 per ton. The commenter claimed
that many of PADEP's ``no control'' determinations fall well below this
range.
    Response: EPA's BART guidelines in the BART Rule do not require
Pennsylvania to develop a specific threshold, but rather to evaluate
each BART determination on a case-by-case basis for each source. EPA
has not established a specific cost threshold that makes a particular
control option BART based on just a dollars per ton number. All five
factors must be compared to determine the level of control that is BART
on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in the NPR, EPA finds the BART
determinations from PADEP reasonable.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA unreasonably relies on CSAPR
for BART and that EPA failed to adequately review Pennsylvania's BART
determinations.
    Response: For BART determinations of sources other than EGUs, EPA
reviewed PADEP's BART determinations in the December 20, 2010
Pennsylvania RH SIP submittal and approves the conclusions as the
determinations are reasonable. Comments related to CSAPR as an
alternative to BART for EGUs are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA addressed similar comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART
alternative in a final action that was signed on May 30, 2012 (77 FR
33642, June 7, 2012). The EPA's response to these comments can be found
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at www.regulations.gov.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA's proposed SO2
reductions from Pennsylvania sources as substitute measures addressing
Pennsylvania's failure to adopt the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU) low sulfur fuel oil strategy are largely reliant upon
the Portland Generating Station SO2 reductions from the
federally enforceable order from EPA responding to the CAA section 126
petition from the State of New Jersey. The commenter also states that
this order has been appealed in the federal Court of Appeals and should
not be relied upon due to its uncertainty.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The rule issued in
response to the CAA section 126 petition from the State of New Jersey
for the Portland Generating Station is federally enforceable and can be
relied upon because it has not been stayed, nor has it been revoked at
this time. The reductions can be relied upon for reasonable progress at
this time because it is a federally enforceable measure. If these
reductions do not occur, then PADEP may have to address them in the
five year look back by submitting a SIP revision.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania's failure to adopt
the low-sulfur fuel oil strategy that was included in New Jersey's
reasonable progress goals cannot be supplemented by SO2
emission reductions without modeling the impacts as required by 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii) provides that a state ``must document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on
which the State is relying to determine its apportionment of emission
reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in
each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this
requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the RPO and
approved by all State participants. The State must identify the
baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based.'' 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). EPA did identify the baseline emissions for the
measures substituted to address the SO2 reductions that
would have come from Pennsylvania's low-sulfur fuel oil strategy, and
the modeling impact of the MANE-VU rule was done by the regional
planning organization (RPO). The low-sulfur fuel oil strategy was an
area source rule and the substituted emission reductions are from
specific sources that are located closer to the Brigantine Class I
area. Thus, the substitution of SO2 reductions does meet the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
    Comment: The commenter stated that both the EPA proposed action for
CSAPR Better-than-BART and EPA's proposed action on Pennsylvania's RH
SIP stated that EPA was taking action on long-term strategy in a
separate notice. The commenter stated that neither rulemaking acted on
the long-term strategy for Pennsylvania which is untenable according to
the commenter.
    Response: The commenter has made an incorrect assumption. The EPA
stated in the proposed action for CSAPR Better-than-BART that we
proposed a limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs that have been
submitted by several states including Pennsylvania and that these
states ``fully consistent with the EPA's regulations at the time,
relied on CAIR requirements to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-
adopted reasonable progress goals'' (76 FR 82221). We further stated
that ``CAIR and CAIR FIP requirements, however, will only remain in
force to address emissions through the 2011 control period and thus
CAIR cannot be relied upon in a SIP as a substitute for BART or as part
of a long-term control strategy.'' Id. EPA proposed and finalized a
limited disapproval for the Pennsylvania RH SIP for the long-term
strategy due to reliance on CAIR. The other long-term strategy measures
are covered under the limited approval proposed for Pennsylvania's RH
SIP in 77 FR 3988. Therefore, all long-term control strategies beyond
reliance on CAIR are included in the limited approval previously
proposed, and now finalized, by this action. The final limited
disapproval and FIP was published on June 7, 2012, addressing the
deficiencies of the long-term strategy insofar as it relied on CAIR (77
FR 33642).
    Comment: The commenter requested a conditional approval of
Pennsylvania's RH SIP requiring the implementation of the lower-sulfur
fuel strategy since it was relied upon for establishing the reasonable
progress goals for MANE-VU Class I areas. Multiple commenters also
stated that EPA's substitution of emission reductions is not permitted
under the

Regional Haze Rule for reasonable progress goals for visibility.
    Response: EPA does not agree that a conditional approval is
appropriate for the Pennsylvania RH SIP given our determination that
the plan meets the relevant applicable requirements. As set forth in a
prior response, EPA disagrees that substitution of emission reductions
is not permitted for reasonable progress goals.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should have disapproved
Pennsylvania's RH SIP due to PADEP's failure to implement a proposed
low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. The commenter stated that EPA should have
demanded the additional 5,702 tons of SO2 emission
reductions from Pennsylvania instead of saying that EPA does not
anticipate the difference will interfere with the ability of other
states to achieve reasonable progress goals.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Disapproving the entire
Pennsylvania RH SIP would have slowed implementation of other controls
listed in the RH SIP. As explained in the NPR, we anticipate that the
Pennsylvania RH SIP will ensure sufficient emission reductions to meet
its share needed for nearby states to achieve their reasonable progress
goals. If it is determined that the shortfall of SO2
emission reductions impedes the achievement of reasonable progress,
then at the time of the five year periodic review PADEP may need to
submit a SIP revision requiring those additional reductions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PADEP BART determination for
GenOn Energy's Cheswick Generating Station included emission limits
including PM which were inconsistent with the plant's current permits.
The commenter requested EPA to require PADEP to revise the BART
determination.
    Response: EPA evaluated the BART determination and agrees with
PADEP's determination of the appropriate BART limit based on current
controls. In setting the BART limits, PADEP appears to have set
emission limits for the facility that are far more stringent than
intended. If Pennsylvania submits a revised BART determination for the
Cheswick Generating Station, EPA commits to act expeditiously on the
revised SIP submittal.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that PADEP did not address
reasonable progress requirements for addressing MANE-VU's modeled
exceedance of the uniform rate of progress (URP) at Dolly Sods Class I
area.
    Response: Reasonable progress goals are set by the Class I area
state. West Virginia did not request any reductions from Pennsylvania
to meet the URP as modeled by Visibility Improvement State and Tribal
Association of the Southeast (VISTAS). The discrepancies in modeling
between the two RPOs were addressed in Pennsylvania's RH SIP submittal.
The requirement for the state consultation process was met, and
Pennsylvania fulfilled what was requested by West Virginia.
    Comment: The commenter stated that Pennsylvania's modeling for the
RH SIP submittal did not address the significant growth in emissions
from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operations and therefore does
not support reasonable progress.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter because reasonable
progress goals are set by the Class I area and are evaluated during the
5 year periodic review. In addition, CAA section 169A(g)(1) requires
states to take into consideration a number of factors for reasonable
progress. States have flexibility in how to take into consideration
these statutory factors and any other factors that are determined to be
relevant. As previously explained herein and in the NPR, we anticipate
that the Pennsylvania RH SIP will ensure sufficient emission reductions
for reasonable progress goals. During the five year periodic review,
any significant changes in projected emissions can be addressed.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing its limited approval of the revision to the
Pennsylvania SIP submitted on December 20, 2010 that addresses regional
haze for the first implementation period in Pennsylvania. EPA is
issuing a limited approval of the Pennsylvania SIP because overall the
SIP will be stronger and more protective of the environment with the
implementation of those measures by Pennsylvania and because the SIP
will be stronger with federal approval and enforceability of
Pennsylvania's RH SIP than it would without those measures being
included in the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA has already finalized the limited
disapproval of Pennsylvania's RH SIP in a separate rulemaking (77 FR
33642, June 7, 2012). EPA is also approving this revision as meeting
the applicable visibility related requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)
including, but not limited to, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 11, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action finalizing the limited approval of the Pennsylvania
Regional Haze SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements. See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 15, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN-- Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for Regional Haze Plan at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP revision     Applicable geographic       submittal        EPA approval date                Additional explanation
                                                   area                 date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan....................  Statewide................        12/20/10  7/13/12 [Insert page       Sec.   52.2042; Limited Approval.
                                                                                number where the
                                                                                document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-16428 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10209-10210]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03784]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15Ba2-6T; SEC File No. S7-19-10, OMB Control No. 3235-0659.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request of extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 15Ba2-6T--Temporary
Registration as a Municipal Advisor; Required Amendments; and
Withdrawal from Temporary Registration (17 CFR 240.15Ba2-6T), under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange
Act'').
    Paragraph (a) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors, as
defined in Section 15B(e)(4) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78o-
4(e)(4)), to electronically file with the Commission on the
Commission's Web site at the following link, Municipal Advisor
Registration, the information set forth in Form MA-T (17 CFR 249.1300T)
to temporarily register or withdraw from temporary registration.
    Paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors to
promptly amend their temporary registration whenever information
concerning Items 1 (Identifying Information) or 3 (Disciplinary
Information) of Form MA-T becomes inaccurate in any way.
    Paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 15Ba2-6T requires municipal advisors to
promptly amend their temporary registration whenever they wish to
withdraw from registration.
    Paragraph (c) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that every initial
registration, amendment to registration, or withdrawal from
registration filed pursuant to this rule constitutes a ``report''
within the meaning of applicable provisions of the Exchange Act.
    Paragraph (d) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that every Form MA-T,
including every amendment to or withdrawal from registration, is
considered filed with the Commission when the electronic form on the
Commission's Web site is completed and the Commission has sent
confirmation to the municipal advisor that the form was filed.
    Paragraph (e) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that all temporary
registrations of municipal advisors will expire on the earlier of: (1)
The date that the municipal advisor's permanent registration, submitted
pursuant to the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder, is approved or
disapproved by the Commission; (2) the date on which the municipal
advisor's temporary registration is rescinded by the Commission; (3)
for a municipal advisor that has not applied for permanent registration
with the Commission in accordance with the Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder, forty-five days after the compliance date of such rules for
the municipal advisor; or (4) December 31, 2014.
    Paragraph (f) of Rule 15Ba2-6T provides that Rule 15Ba2-6T will
expire on December 31, 2014.
    The primary purpose of Rule 15Ba2-6T is to provide information
about municipal advisors to investors and issuers, as well as the
Commission pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
    Commission staff estimates that approximately 100 new municipal
advisors will file Form MA-T during the period January 1, 2014 through
December 31, 2014. Commission staff estimates that each of the
approximately 100 new municipal advisors will spend an average of 2.5
hours preparing each Form MA-T. Therefore the estimated total reporting
burden associated with completing Form MA-T is 250 hours. Additionally,
Commission staff estimates that approximately 1,150 municipal advisors
currently registered with the Commission and the estimated

100 new municipal advisors will amend (or withdraw) their Form MA-T
once during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014,
and that it will take approximately 30 minutes to amend (or withdraw)
their form, which means the total burden associated with amending Form
MA-T is 625 hours. Therefore, the total annual burden associated with
completing and amending Form MA-T is 875 hours.
    The Commission believes that some municipal advisors will seek
outside counsel to help them comply with the requirements of Rule
15Ba2-6T and Form MA-T, and assumes that 100 municipal advisors will
consult outside counsel for one hour for this purpose. The hourly rate
for an attorney is $379, according to the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association's publication titled Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2012, as modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1,800-hour work year and multiplied
by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and
overhead. The Commission estimates the total cost for these 100
municipal advisors to hire outside counsel to review their compliance
with the requirements of Rule 15Ba2-6T and Form MA-T to be
approximately $37,900.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: February 18, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03784 Filed 2-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41087-41088]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14615]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Investment Company Act of 1940 Release no. 33916/July 1, 2020; In
the Matter of Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, et al. File
No. 812-14722

Order Granting Hearing and Scheduling Filing of Statements

    On December 20, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') issued a notice of application (the ``Notice'') for an
order approving the substitution of certain securities pursuant to
section 26(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
(``Act'') and an order of exemption pursuant to section 17(b) of the
Act from section 17(a) of the Act, submitted by Allianz Life Insurance
Company of North America and other Applicants as defined in the Notice
(collectively, ``Allianz'').\1\ On January 14, 2020, Franklin Advisers,
Inc., Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC, and Templeton Global Advisors
Limited (collectively, ``Franklin'') submitted a request for a hearing
(the ``Hearing Request'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, et al.,
Investment Company Act Release No. 33721 (Dec. 20, 2019), available
at https://www.sec.gov/rules/ic/2019/ic-33721.pdf.
    \2\ Letter from Franklin to Vanessa Countryman, dated January
14, 2020, submitted by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, available at
https://www.sec.gov/comments/812-14722/812-14722-9.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that a hearing is appropriate pursuant to
Investment Company Act Rule 0-5.\3\ Accordingly, the Commission hereby
establishes that Allianz and Franklin may each file an additional
written statement regarding the Allianz Application. Any such written
statements shall be prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface of 12
points or larger and shall not exceed 10,000 words, exclusive of pages
containing the table of contents, table of authorities, and any
addendum that consists solely of copies of applicable cases, pertinent
legislative provisions or rules, and exhibits. The scope of the written
statements shall be limited to those issues that were raised in
Franklin's Hearing Request. Incorporation of any document by reference
into a written statement is not permitted. Written statements shall be
submitted to the Commission by sending an email to the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving the opposing party
with a copy of the written statement by email. Written statements
should be received by the Commission on or before July 31, 2020, at
5:30 p.m., and should be accompanied by proof of service on the
opposing party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 275.0-5(c). Rule 0-5(c) provides that the Commission
will order a hearing on a matter, upon the request of an interested
person or upon its own motion, if it appears that a hearing is
``necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the
protection of investors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further establishes that Allianz and Franklin then
each may file a responsive written statement, which also shall be
prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface of 12 points or larger and
shall not exceed 5,000 words, exclusive of the items listed above. The
scope of any such responsive statement shall be limited to

the issues raised in the written statement to which the party is
responding. Incorporation of any document by reference into a
responsive written statement is not permitted. Responsive written
statements shall be submitted to the Commission on or before August 17,
2020, at 5:30 p.m., at the email address above, and shall be
accompanied by proof of service on the opposing party.
    This process will provide an opportunity for the Commission to
fully assess the Allianz Application and the issues that Franklin has
raised. Allianz and Franklin are hereby notified that any arguments
related to the Allianz Application that are not discussed in their
respective written statements shall be deemed waived. Reference to
other documents, including prior submissions and exhibits, will not be
sufficient to preserve arguments. The Hearing Request did not include a
request for an in-person hearing, and the Commission has determined
that its consideration of the Allianz Application would not be
significantly aided by oral argument, so this hearing will be limited
to written statements.
    The filing of written statements related to the Allianz Application
shall be limited to Allianz and Franklin because the period of time
specified for an interested party to file a hearing request elapsed on
January 14, 2020. No other party may submit a written statement
regarding the Allianz Application except by leave of the Commission,
upon a showing by that party that it has both a cognizable interest and
good cause as to why it did not file a hearing request by the specified
date.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to Investment Company Act
Rule 0-5(c), Franklin's request for a hearing is granted.
    It is further ordered that on or before July 31, 2020, at 5:30
p.m., Allianz and Franklin may each submit to the Commission an
additional written statement in accordance with this order.
    It is further ordered that on or before August 17, 2020, at 5:30
p.m., Allianz and Franklin may each submit to the Commission a
responsive written statement in accordance with this order.

    By the Commission.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14615 Filed 7-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26683-26684]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9978-67-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Rhode
Island's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized
programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of June 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Devon Martin, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
2603, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On May 2, 2018, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RI DEM) submitted an application titled ``NPDES e-Reporting
Tool'' for revisions/modifications to its EPA-approved programs under
title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed RI DEM's
request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized

programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application
met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/
modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with
40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Rhode
Island's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs
to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 125, and 403-471,
is being published in the Federal Register:
    Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; and
    Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution.
    RI DEM was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-12348 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 45501]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18437]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

    Extension: Form S-1, SEC File No. 270-58, OMB Control No. 3235-
0065.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form S-1 (17 CFR 239.11) is used by domestic issuers who are not
eligible to use other forms to register a public offering of their
securities under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.).
Form S-1 takes approximately 972.32 hours per response and is filed by
approximately 903 issuers annually. We estimate that 25% of the 972.32
hours per response (243.08 hours) is prepared by the issuer for a total
annual reporting burden of 219,501 hours (243.08 hours per response x
903 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 30, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18437 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period to review the proposed regulations is insufficient. We are requesting that the review period be extended to 180 days. I have been an e-smoker for 5 years. My doctor has commented many times about my overall health, blood pressure and lung function being greatly improved.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30940-30941]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10850]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0160; FRL-9409-13-OCSPP]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Active Ingredients--April 2022

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the EPA File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of
this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    The latest information on EPA/DC docket access, services and
submitting comments is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511M), main telephone number:
(202) 566-1400, email address: [email protected]. The mailing
address: Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Include the
contact person's name, division, and mail code in the mailing address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4)
(7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and
opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of
these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these
applications. For actions being evaluated under EPA's public
participation process for registration actions, there will be an
additional opportunity for public comment on the proposed decisions.
Please see EPA's public participation website for additional
information on this process (http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions).

Notice of Receipt--New Active Ingredients

    1. EPA File Symbols: 10163-GIU and 10163-GIL. Docket ID number:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0302. Applicant: Gowan Company in cooperation with SDS
Biotech K.K., c/o Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126, 3185
Madison Highway, Valdosta, GA 31603. Product names: SB-950 Technical
and SB-9503. Active ingredient: Fungicide--Bacillus amyloliquefaciens
strain AT-332 at 82.5% and 30.0%. Proposed use: For aerial and ground
applications. Contact: BPPD.
    2. EPA File Symbols: 95374-R and 95374-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2022-0278. Applicant: Trafalgar Land Company, LLC, P.O. Box 38,
Orosi, CA 93647. Product names: CPCC TGAI and CPCC 40.5. Active
ingredient: Rodenticide--Cellulose from powdered corn cobs at 45.1% and
40.5%. Proposed use: For use indoors to control mice. Contact: BPPD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: May 12, 2022.
Brian Bordelon,
Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management
Division, Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2022-10850 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P