[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20166-20167]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07061]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0198; FRL-10838-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Center for
Biological Diversity et al., v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv-03309-RS (N.D.
Cal.). On June 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and
Center for Environmental Health filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. On September
12, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs alleged
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) failed to
perform certain non-discretionary duties in accordance with the Act to
timely respond to numerous state implementation plan (SIP) submissions
from the State of North Dakota, the State of California, the State of
Colorado, and the State of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs also alleged that
EPA failed to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the
State of California and the State of New Hampshire. Certain claims
included in the Amended Complaint have since been rendered moot, and
the proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to sign a
notice of final rulemaking on the remaining claims.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by May 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2023-0198, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Pettit, Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0198) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree, and is available
through https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to
take action pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on certain SIP submissions
by the State of Colorado, the State of California, and the State of New
Hampshire. First, on March 22, 2021, the State of Colorado made a SIP
submission addressing CAA section 182(c) requirements for the Denver
Metro/North Front Range Serious nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The proposed consent
decree would require EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking by
September 29, 2023.
    Second, on February 3, 2017, EPA published a final rule that found
that various nonattainment areas in the State of California and the
State of New Hampshire failed to submit SIP revisions for various
nonattainment SIP elements. The proposed consent decree would require
EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking for the nonattainment new
source review (NSR) SIP element for the Los Angeles--San Bernardino
Counties (West Mojave Desert), California nonattainment area by
November 29, 2024. The proposed consent decree would require EPA to
sign a notice of final rulemaking for various SIP elements or control
techniques guidelines (CTG) for the Sacramento Metro, California
nonattainment area (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District) by March 31, 2024. The proposed consent decree would require
EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking for the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) nitrogen oxides (NOx) for Major Sources SIP
element for the Sacramento Metro, California nonattainment area
(Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District) by September
30, 2024. The proposed consent decree would require EPA to sign a
notice of final rulemaking for various SIP elements or CTG for the
Sacramento Metro, California nonattainment area (Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District) by March 31, 2024. The proposed consent
decree would require EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking for
various SIP elements or CTG for the New Hampshire portion of the ozone
transport region by September 30, 2023. The proposed consent decree
would require EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking for the portion
of the revision to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District
portion of the California SIP concerning the minor source NSR by
September 30, 2023.
    Third, on December 29, 2020, the State of California made a SIP
submission addressing the 2020 RACT demonstration for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS for San Diego County. The proposed consent decree would require
EPA to sign a notice of final rulemaking for the demonstration, except
for four declarations, by October 31, 2024.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-
0198, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-07061 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69220-69221]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28487]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128; FRL-9936-85-OAR]

Release of Draft Integrated Review Plan for the Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides
of Sulfur

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability, for public review, the draft document titled Draft
Integrated Review Plan for the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur (draft IRP). This
document contains the plans for the review of the air quality criteria
for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur and the secondary national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for oxides of nitrogen and oxides
of sulfur (NOX/SOX). The secondary
NOX/SOX NAAQS provide for the protection of
public welfare from exposure to NOX and SOX in
ambient air.

DATES: The draft IRP was made available on October 30, 2015. Comments
must be received on or before December 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This document will be available primarily via the Internet
at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/2013_fr.html. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Tennant, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (mail code C504-06), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:
919-541-4072; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through 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 the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that

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

II. Information Specific to This Document

    Two sections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment
and revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to
issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is
to list those air pollutants that in her ``judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the presence of which in the
ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary
sources;'' and ``for which . . . [the Administrator] plans to issue air
quality criteria . . . .'' Air quality criteria are intended to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air . . .'' 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Under section
109 (42 U.S.C. 7409), the EPA establishes primary (health-based) and
secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality
criteria are issued. Section 109(d) requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS
based on the revised criteria. Section 109(d)(2) requires that an
independent scientific review committee ``shall complete a review of
the criteria . . . and the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards . . . and shall recommend to the Administrator any
new . . . standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as
may be appropriate . . . .'' Since the early 1980's, this independent
review function has been performed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC).
    Presently, the EPA is reviewing the secondary NAAQS for
NOX/SOX.\1\ The draft document, announced today,
has been developed as part of the planning phase for the review. This
phase began with a science policy workshop to identify issues and
questions to frame the review.\2\ Drawing from the workshop
discussions, this draft IRP was prepared jointly by EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment, within the Office of Research and
Development, and EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
within the Office of Air and Radiation. The draft IRP will be reviewed
by CASAC at a teleconference on December 1, 2015. The final IRP will
include consideration of CASAC and public comments received on this
draft IRP. This document also presents the current plan and specifies
the schedule for the entire review, the process for conducting the
review, and the key policy-relevant science issues that will guide the
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA's call for information for this review was issued on
August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53452).
    \2\ The EPA held a workshop titled ``Workshop to Discuss Policy-
Relevant Science to Inform EPA's Review of the Secondary
NOX and SOX NAAQS'' on March 4-6, 2014.

    Dated: November 3, 2015.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2015-28487 Filed 11-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56838-56839]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-10-097]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. All Jurisdictional Sellers, et al.;
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 12, 2012, Idaho Power Company and IDACORP
Energy, L.P. submitted their compliance filing in response to the
Commission's June 13, 2012 Order, Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. All
Jurisdictional Sellers, et al., Order Approving Settlement

Subject to Condition, 139 FERC ] 61,209 (2012) (June 13 Order).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 17, 2012.

    Dated: September 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22664 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75136]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-256-000.
    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Order to Show Cause--
Corrected Tariff Effective Date to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-257-000.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Order to Show Cause--
Corrected Tariff Effective Date to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-258-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Nicor Gas
Negotiated Rate to be effective 12/10/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-903-001.
    Applicants: SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Revised Show Cause
Order Compliance Filing to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-904-001.
    Applicants: Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Revised Show Cause
Order Compliance Filing to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-905-001.
    Applicants: Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Revised Show Cause
Order Compliance Filing to be effective 10/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/10/14.
    Accession Number: 20141210-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29529 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75734-75739]
[DOCID:fr21de05-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0292]; FRL-7749-4]

Extension of Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions (Multiple
Chemicals)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for the
pesticides listed in Unit II. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. These
actions are in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under
section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) authorizing use of these pesticides. Section 408(l)(6) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) requires EPA to establish
a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a
tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from
the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 21, 2005. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit III. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0292. All documents in the docket are on the
http://www.regulations.gov web site. (EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket

and comment system was replaced on November 25, 2005, by an enhanced
federal-wide electronic docket management and comment system located at
http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line instructions.) Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information

and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2,
1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See the table in this unit for the
name of a specific contact person. The following information applies to
all contact persons: Emergency Response Team, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Pesticide/CFR cite                     Contact person
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diflubenzuron, 180.377;                   Libby Pemberton
Maneb, 180.110<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Propiconazole, 180.434;.................<PHONE_NUMBER>
Tebuconazole, 180.474...................
-----------------------------------------
Lambda-cyhalothrin, 180.438;              Andrew Ertman
Spinosad, 180.495<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>
-----------------------------------------
Methoxyfenozide, 180.544                  Stacey Milan Groce
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>
-----------------------------------------
Difenoconazole, 180.475;                  Andrea Conrath
Fenbuconazole, 180.480<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Thiophanate methyl, 180.371.............<PHONE_NUMBER>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111)
     Animal production (NAICS code 112)
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180

is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA published final rules in the Federal Register for each
chemical/commodity listed. The initial issuance of these final rules
announced that EPA, on its own initiative, under section 408 of the
FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA) (Public Law 104-170) was establishing time-limited
tolerances.
    EPA established the tolerances because section 408(l)(6) of the
FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in
food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency
exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be
established without providing notice or time for public comment.
    EPA received requests to extend the use of these chemicals for this
year's growing season. After having reviewed these submissions, EPA
concurs that emergency conditions exist. EPA assessed the potential
risks presented by residues for each chemical/commodity. In doing so,
EPA considered the safety

standard in section 408(b)(2) of the FFDCA, and decided that the
necessary tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA would be
consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
    The data and other relevant material have been evaluated and
discussed in the final rule originally published to support these uses.
Based on that data and information considered, the Agency reaffirms
that extension of these time-limited tolerances will continue to meet
the requirements of section 408(l)(6) of the FFDCA. Therefore, the
time-limited tolerances are extended until the date listed. EPA will
publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked
tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although these
tolerances will expire and are revoked on the date listed, under
section 408(l)(5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess
of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on the
commodity after that date will not be unlawful, provided the residue is
present as a result of an application or use of a pesticide at a time
and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, the tolerance was in place
at the time of the application, and the residue does not exceed the
level that was authorized by the tolerance. EPA will take action to
revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data
on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the
residues are not safe.
    Tolerances for the use of the following pesticide chemicals on
specific commodities are being extended:
    Difenoconazole. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of difenoconazole on sweet corn seed for control of various fungal
diseases in Colorado and Idaho. This regulation extends time-limited
tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole, (2S,4R)/
(2R,4S)/(2R,4R)/(2S,4S)]1-[2-[4- (4-chlorophenoxy)-2-chlorophenyl]-4-
methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl-methyl]- 1H-1,2,4-triazole in or on sweet corn
seed, forage, and stover at 0.1 part per million (ppm) for an
additional 3-year period. These tolerances will expire and are revoked
on December 31, 2008. Time-limited tolerances were originally published
in the Federal Register of September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47680) (FRL-6094-
3).
    Diflubenzuron. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
diflubenzuron on wheat and barley for control of grasshoppers in
Montana, Washington, and Idaho. This regulation extends time-limited
tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron, N-
[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6- difluorobenzamide and its
metabolites 4-chlorophenlyurea and 4-chloroaniline (CPU) and (PCA) in
or on wheat and barley grain at 0.05 ppm, wheat and barley straw at
0.50 ppm, wheat and barley hay at 1.0 ppm, wheat milled byproducts at
0.10 ppm, and aspirated grain fractions at 30 ppm for an additional 3-
year period. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on December
31, 2008. Time-limited tolerances were originally published in the
Federal Register of August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51479) (FRL-7323-1).
    Fenbuconazole. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
fenbuconazole on grapefruit for control of greasy spot disease in
Florida. This regulation extends time-limited tolerances for combined
residues of the fungicide fenbuconazole and its metabolites RH-9129 and
RH-9130, expressed as the parent fenbuconazole, in or on whole
grapefruit at 0.5 ppm, at 4.0 ppm in/on dried grapefruit, at 35 ppm in/
on grapefruit oil; and at 0.1 ppm in/on meat and meat by-products of
cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep for an additional 3-year period.
These tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2008.
Time-limited tolerances were originally published in the Federal
Register of January 29, 1999 (64 FR 4577) (FRL6054-3).
    Lambda-cyhalothrin. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin on barley for control of the Russian wheat
aphid and cutworms in Idaho, Colrado, Wyoming and Montana. This
regulation extends time-limited tolerances for combined residues of the
pyrethroid lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)- (1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl) -
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl- (Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoroprop-1- enyl)-
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its epimer expressed as epimer
of lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S) -3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl) -
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on barley grain at 0.05 ppm,
barley bran at 0.2 ppm, and barley hay and straw at 2.0 ppm for an
additional 3-year period. These tolerances will expire and are revoked
on December 31, 2008. Time-limited tolerances were originally published
in the Federal Register of October 29, 1997 (62 FR 56095) (FRL-5745-5).
    Lambda-cyhalothrin. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin on alfalfa/clover/grass mixed stands for
control of potato leafhoppers in New York. This regulation extends
time-limited tolerances for combined residues of the pyrethroid lambda-
cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-
(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-
(Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoroprop-1- enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its epimer expressed as epimer of
lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of (S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S) -3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl) -
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-[alpha]-cyano-3-
phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3- trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-
2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on Clover, forage at 5.0 ppm;
Clover, hay at 6.0 ppm; Grass, forage at 5.0 ppm; and Grass, hay at 6.0
ppm for an additional 3-year period. These tolerances will expire and
are revoked on December 31, 2008. Time-limited tolerances were
originally published in the Federal Registers of January 3, 2003 (68 FR
283) (FRL-7285-2) and September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52354)(FRL-7321-3).
    Lambda-cyhalothrin. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin on wild rice for control of rice worms in
Minnesota. This regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for
combined residues of the pyrethroid lambda-cyhalothrin, 1:1 mixture of
(S)-[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(Z)- (1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-
[alpha]-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl- (Z)-(1S,3S)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1- enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its
epimer expressed as epimer of lambda-cyhalothrin, a 1:1 mixture of (S)-
[alpha]-cyano-3- phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1S,3S) -3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-enyl) -2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and (R)-
[alpha]-cyano-3- phenoxybenzyl-(Z)-(1R,3R)-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoroprop-1-enyl)- 2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate in or on
rice, wild at 1.0 ppm for an additional 3-year period. These tolerances
will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2008. The time-limited
tolerance was originally published in

the Federal Register of January 3, 2003 (68 FR 283) (FRL-7285-2).
    Maneb. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of maneb
on walnuts for control of bacterial blight in California. This
regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for combined residues of
the fungicide maneb (manganous ethylenebisdithiocarbamate) calculated
as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate, and its metabolite ethylenethiourea
in or on walnuts at 0.05 ppm for an additional 1-year period. This
tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2008. A time-
limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal Register on
March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13097) (FRL-6067-9).
    Methoxyfenozide. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use
of methoxyfenozide on soybeans for control of soybean loopers and salt
marsh catepillars in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. This
regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for residues of the
insecticide methoxyfenozide, benzoic acid, 3-methoxy-2-methyl-2-(3,5-
dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)hydrazide in or on soybean
aspirated grain fractions at 20 ppm, soybean seed at 0.04 ppm, soybean
forage at 10 ppm, soybean hay at 75 ppm, and soybean refined oil at 1.0
ppm for an additional 2-year period. These tolerances will expire and
are revoked on December 31, 2007. Time-limited tolerances were
originally published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2001 (66 FR
55585) (FRL-6806-4).
    Propiconazole. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
propiconazole on cranberries for control of cottonball disease in
Wisconsin. This regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for
combined residues of the fungicide propiconazole, 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole
and its metabolites determined as 2,4-dichlorobenzoic acid and
expressed as parent compound in or on cranberry for an additional two-
year period. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31,
2007. A time-limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17710) (FRL-5600-5).
    Spinosad. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
spinosad on alfalfa for control of armyworms in New Mexico and on
pastureland and rangeland for control of armyworms in Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Oregon. This regulation extends time-limited
tolerances for combined residues of the insecticide spinosad, Factor A
is 2-[(6-deoxy-2,3,4-tri-O -methyl-o-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[5-
(dimethlamino) -tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2- yl]oxy]9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,6b, tetradecahydro-14-methyl-1H-as-
Indaceno [3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione. Factor D is 2-[6-deoxy-
2,3,4-tri-O-methyl -o-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]13-[[5-(dimethylamino) -
tetrahydri-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl -
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b- tetradecahydro-4,14,dimethyl-
1H-as- Indaceno[3,2d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione. in or on alfalfa
forage at 4.0 ppm; alfalfa hay at 4.0 ppm; grass forage at 7.0 ppm; and
grass hay at 7.0 ppm; for an additional 3-year period. These tolerances
will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2008. A time-limited
tolerance was originally published for sunflowers in the Federal
Register of January 9, 2001 (66 FR 1592) (FRL-6760-2).
    Tebuconazole. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
tebuconazole on garlic for control of garlic rust in California. This
regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for residues of the
fungicide tebuconazole in or on garlic at 0.1 ppm for an additional 2-
year period. This tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31,
2007. A time-limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal
Register on May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28377) (FRL-6079-1).
    Tebuconazole. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of
tebuconazole on sunflowers for control of rust in Colorado. This
regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for residues of the
fungicide tebuconazole in or on sunflower oil at 0.4 ppm and sunflower
seed at 0.2 ppm for an additional 2-year period. This tolerance will
expire and is revoked on December 31, 2007. A time-limited tolerance
was originally published in the Federal Register on June 20, 1997 (62
FR 33550) (FRL-5725-7).
    Thiophanate methyl. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the
use of thiophanate methyl on fruiting vegetables, including tomato, for
control of white mold in Florida, Virginia, and New Jersey. This
regulation extends a crop group time-limited tolerance for residues of
the fungicide thiophanate methyl and its metabolite methyl 2-
benzimidazoyl carbamate (MBC) in or on the fruiting vegetable crop
group at 0.5 ppm for an additional 3-year period. This crop group
tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2008. The time-
limited tolerance was originally published in the Federal Register on
July 23, 2003 (68 FR 43465) (FRL-7317-5).

III. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those
regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to
the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with
appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made.
The new section 408(g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same
process for persons to ``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d)
of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the
FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather
than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0292 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before January
20, 2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issue(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington,

DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the
Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005.
The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit III.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0292, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology and
Resource Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 file
format or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic
copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many
Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes time-limited tolerances under section
408 of the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to 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). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established under section 408(l)(6)
of the FFDCA in response to an exemption under FIFRA section 18, such
as the tolerances in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on 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,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final
rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and
food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the
relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule
does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 15, 2005.
Rachel C. Holloman,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

Sec.  180.110  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  180.110, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entry for
Walnuts by revising the expiration date ``12/31/07'' to read ``12/31/
08.''

Sec.  180.371  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  180.371, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entry for
Vegetables, Fruiting, Group 8 by revising the expiration date ``12/31/
05'' to read ``12/31/08.''

Sec.  180.377  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  180.377, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Barley, grain; Barley, hay; Barley, straw; Wheat, aspirated grain
fractions; Wheat, grain; Wheat, hay; Wheat, milled byproducts; and
Wheat, straw by revising the expiration date ``12/31/05'' to read ``12/
31/08.''

Sec.  180.434  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  180.434, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entry for
Cranberry by revising the expiration date ``12/31/05'' to read ``12/31/
07.''

Sec.  180.438  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  180.438, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Barley, bran; Barley, grain; Barley, hay; Barley, straw; Clover,
forage; Clover, hay; Grass, forage; Grass, hay; Rice, wild by revising
the expiration dates ``12/31/05'' to read ``12/31/08.''

Sec.  180.474  [Amended]

0
8. In Sec.  180.474, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Garlic; Sunflower, oil and Sunflower, seed by revising the
expiration date ``12/31/05'' to read ``12/31/07.''

Sec.  180.475  [Amended]

0
9. In Sec.  180.475, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Corn, sweet (kernel + cob with husk removed; Corn, sweet, forage;
and Corn, sweet, stover by revising the expiration dates ``12/31/05''
to read ``12/31/08.''

Sec.  180.480  [Amended]

0
10. In Sec.  180.480, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Cattle, fat; Cattle, meat byproducts; Cattle, meat; Goat, fat;
Goat, meat byproducts; Goat, meat; Grapefruit; Grapefruit, dried pulp;
Grapefruit oil; Hogs, fat; Hogs, meat byproducts; Hogs, meat; Horse,
fat; Horse, meat byproducts; Horse, meat; Sheep, fat; Sheep, meat
byproducts; and, Sheep, meat; by revising the expiration dates ``12/31/
05'' to read ``12/31/08.''

Sec.  180.495  [Amended]

0
11. In Sec.  180.495, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Alfalfa, forage; Alfalfa, hay; Grass, forage; and Grass, hay; by
revising the expiration date ``12/31/05'' to read ``12/31/08.''

Sec.  180.544  [Amended]

0
12. In Sec.  180.544, in the table to paragraph (b), amend the entries
for Soybean, aspirated grain fractions; Soybean, forage; Soybean, hay;
Soybean, refined oil; Soybean, seed by revising the expiration date
``12/31/05'' to read ``12/31/07.''

[FR Doc. 05-24322 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


PVAB estimated incremental
            New requirement                  annual compliance burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(A)--Notice to       Increase in paperwork burden
 Registrants and Rule 14a 2(b)(9)(iii)    corresponding to:
 Safe Harbor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PVAB has adopted and publicly        To the extent that the PVAB's
 disclosed written policies and           current practices and
 procedures reasonably designed to        procedures are not already
 ensure that registrants who are the      sufficient:
 subject of proxy voting advice have     [cir] Developing new or
 such advice made available to them at    modifying existing systems,
 or prior to the time the advice is       policies and methods, or
 disseminated to clients of the PVAB.     developing and maintaining new
Safe Harbor--The PVAB has written         systems, policies and methods
 policies and procedures that are         to ensure that it has the
 reasonably designed to provide a         capability to timely provide
 registrant with a copy of the PVAB's     each registrant with
 proxy voting advice, at no charge, no    information about its proxy
 later than the time it is disseminated   voting advice necessary to
 to the PVAB's clients. Such policies     satisfy the requirement in
 and procedures may include conditions    Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(A) and/or
 requiring that:.                         the safe harbor in Rule 14a-
(A) The registrant has filed its          2(b)(9)(iii).
 definitive proxy statement at least 40  [cir] If applicable, obtaining
 calendar days before the security        acknowledgments or agreements
 holder meeting date (or if no meeting    with respect to use of any
 is held, at least 40 calendar days       information shared with the
 before the date the votes, consents,     registrant; and
 or authorizations may be used to        [cir] Delivering copies of
 effect the proposed action); and.        proxy voting advice to
                                          registrants
                                         We estimate the increase in
                                          paperwork burden to be 8,535
                                          hours per PVAB, consisting of
                                          2,845 hours for system updates
                                          and 5,690 hours for
                                          acknowledgments regarding
                                          sharing information.
        (B) The registrant has
         acknowledged that it will only
         use the copy of the proxy
         voting advice for its internal
         purposes and/or in connection
         with the solicitation and it
         will not be published or
         otherwise shared except with
         the registrant's employees or
         advisers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(B)--Notice to       Increase in paperwork burden
 Clients of Proxy Voting Advice           corresponding to:
 Businesses and Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(iv)
 Safe Harbor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PVAB has adopted and publicly        To the extent that the PVAB's
 disclosed written policies and           current practices and
 procedures reasonably designed to        procedures are not already
 ensure that the PVAB provides clients    sufficient:
 with a mechanism by which they can      Developing new or modifying
 reasonably be expected to become aware   existing systems, policies and
 of any written statements regarding      methods, or developing and
 proxy voting advice by registrants who   maintaining new systems,
 are the subject of such advice, in a     policies and methods capable
 timely manner before the shareholder     of:
 meeting.                                [cir] Tracking whether the
Safe harbor--The PVAB has written         registrant has filed
 policies and procedures that are         additional soliciting
 reasonably designed to inform clients    materials;
 who receive the proxy voting advice     [cir] Ensuring that PVABs
 when a registrant that is the subject    provide clients with a means
 of such voting advice notifies the       to learn of a registrant's
 proxy voting advice business that it     written statements about proxy
 intends to file or has filed             voting advice in a timely
 additional soliciting materials with     manner that satisfies the
 the Commission setting forth the         requirement in Rule 14a-
 registrant's statement regarding the     2(b)(9)(ii)(B) and/or the safe
 voting advice, by:.                      harbor in Rule 14a-
(A) Providing notice to its clients on    2(b)(9)(iv).
 its electronic client platform that     If relying on the safe harbor
 the registrant intends to file or has    in Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(iv)(A) or
 filed such additional soliciting         (B), the associated paperwork
 materials and including an active        burden would include the time
 hyperlink to those materials on EDGAR    and effort required of the
 when available; or.                      PVAB to:
(B) The PVAB providing notice to its     [cir] Provide notice to its
 clients through email or other           clients through the PVAB's
 electronic means that the registrant     electronic client platform or
 intends to file or has filed such        email or other electronic
 additional soliciting materials and      medium, as appropriate, that
 including an active hyperlink to those   the registrant intends to file
 materials on EDGAR when available..      or has filed additional
                                          soliciting materials setting
                                          forth its views about the
                                          proxy voting advice; and
                                         [cir] include a hyperlink to
                                          the registrant's statement on
                                          EDGAR.
                                         We estimate the increase in
                                          paperwork burden to be 2,845
                                          hours per PVAB.
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................  11,380 hours per PVAB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Altogether, we estimated an annual total increase of 34,140 hours
\141\ in compliance burden to be incurred by PVABs that would be
subject to Rules 14a-2(b)(9)(ii), (iii) and (iv). Accordingly, we
expect that our proposed amendments would allow PVABs to avoid these
burdens that they would otherwise be subject to, absent the proposed
amendments, once Rule 14a-2(b)(9) becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ This represented the annual total burden increase expected
to be incurred by PVABs (as an average of the yearly burden
predicted over the three-year period following adoption of the 2020
Final Rules) and was intended to be inclusive of all burdens
reasonably anticipated to be associated with compliance with the
Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions. The Commission is aware of three
PVABs in the U.S. (i.e., Glass Lewis, ISS and Egan-Jones) whose
activities fall within the scope of proxy voting advice constituting
a solicitation under amended Rule 14a-1(l)(1)(iii)(A). We estimated
that each of these would have a burden of 11,380 hours per year
associated with Rules 14a-2(b)(9)(ii), (iii) and (iv). See 2020
Adopting Release at n.700. We recognized that there could be other
PVABs, including both smaller firms and firms operating outside the
U.S., which may also be subject to those rules. However, we expected
such a number to be small. Accordingly, rather than increasing our
estimate of the number of affected PVABs beyond the three discussed
above, we increased our annual total burden estimate by 500 hours to
account for those businesses. However, that 500 hour increase also
accounted for the burden imposed by Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(i), which is
not affected by the proposed amendments. Because we did not
indicate, in the adopting release for the 2020 Final Rules, what
portion of that 500 hour increase would be attributable to the
various conditions in Rule 14a-2(b)(9), we do not include that 500
hour increase in this PRA analysis in order to avoid overestimating
the amount of burden that PVABs would be relieved of as a result of
the proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Registrants
    In addition to PVABs, we anticipate that registrants would avoid
increased paperwork burden as a result of our proposed amendment to
Rule 14a-2(b)(9). In the adopting release for the 2020 Final Rules, we
noted that registrants could, as a result of the adoption of Rule 14a-
2(b)(9), experience increased burdens associated with coordinating with
PVABs to receive the proxy voting advice, reviewing the proxy voting
advice and preparing and filing supplementary proxy materials in
response to the proxy voting advice, if they choose to do so. Because
Rule 14a-2(b)(9) does not require registrants to engage with PVABs or
take any action in response to proxy voting advice, we stated that we
expected a registrant would bear additional paperwork burden only if it
anticipated the benefits of engaging with the PVABs would exceed the
costs of participation. We noted that these costs would vary depending
upon the particular facts and circumstances of the proxy voting advice
and any issues identified therein, as well as the resources of the
registrant, which made it difficult to provide a reliable quantifiable
estimate of these costs.
    Notwithstanding those difficulties, we estimated an average
increase of 50 hours per registrant in connection with the amendments
for a total annual increase of 284,500 hours, assuming that a
registrant's annual meeting of shareholders is covered by at least two
of the three major PVABs in the United States, and the registrant has
opted to review both sets of proxy voting advice and file additional
soliciting materials in response.\142\ Accordingly, we expect that by
eliminating the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions, our proposed
amendments would result in a corresponding reduction of potential
paperwork burdens that those registrants would have otherwise been
expected to incur once Rule 14a-2(b)(9) becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ We also noted that such burden increase would be offset
against any corresponding reduction in burden resulting from the
registrant forgoing other methods of responding to the proxy voting
advice (such as investor outreach) that the registrant determines
are no longer necessary or are less preferable in light of Rule 14a-
2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Aggregate Burden Avoided as a Result of the Proposed Amendments
    Table 1 summarizes the calculations and assumptions used in the
adopting release for the 2020 Final Rules to derive our estimates of
the aggregate increase in burden for all affected parties corresponding
to the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions.

     PRA Table 1--Calculation of Aggregate Increase in Burden Hours Resulting From the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)
                                                   Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Affected parties
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                               Proxy voting advice
                                                                    businesses                Registrants
                                                                                (A)                        (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden Hour Increase......................................                     34,140                    284,500
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Aggregate Increase in Burden Hours........................   [Column Total (A)] + [Column Total (B)] = [318,640]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we expect that our proposed amendments would allow the
affected parties to avoid these estimated burden hours that they would
otherwise be subject to, absent the proposed amendments, once Rule 14a-
2(b)(9) becomes effective.
3. Increase in Annual Responses Avoided as a Result of the Proposed
Amendments
    We believe that the proposed amendments would avoid an increase in
the number of annual responses \143\ to the existing collection of
information for Regulation 14A. In the adopting release for the 2020
Final Rules, we stated that we do not expect registrants to file any
different number of proxy statements as a result of those rules. We did
state, however, that we anticipated that the number of additional
soliciting materials filed under 17 CFR 240.14a-6 may increase in
proportion to the number of times that registrants choose to provide a
statement in response to a PVAB's proxy voting advice as contemplated
by Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii)(B) or the safe harbor under Rule 14a-
2(b)(9)(iv). For purposes of the PRA analysis in that release, we
estimated that there would be an additional 783 annual responses to the
collection of information as a result of the 2020 Final Rules.\144\
Accordingly, we expect that our proposed amendments would result in an
avoidance of such an increase in the number of additional annual
responses to the collection of information for Regulation 14A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ For purposes of the Regulation 14A collection of
information, the number of annual responses corresponds to the
estimated number of new filings that will be made each year under
Regulation 14A, which includes filings such as DEF 14A; DEFA14A;
DEFM14A; and DEFC14A. When calculating PRA burden for any particular
collection of information, the total number of annual burden hours
estimated is divided by the total number of annual responses
estimated, which provides the average estimated annual burden per
response. The current inventory of approved collections of
information is maintained by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA''), a division of OMB. The total annual
burden hours and number of responses associated with Regulation 14A,
as updated from time to time, can be found at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    \144\ 2020 Adopting Release at n.707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Incremental Change in Compliance Burden for Collection of
Information
    PRA Table 2 below illustrates our estimated incremental change to
the total annual compliance burden for the Regulation 14A collection of
information in hours and in costs \145\ as a result of the Rule 14a-
2(b)(9)(ii) conditions, as calculated in the PRA analysis for the 2020
Final Rules. The table sets forth the percentage estimates we typically
use for the burden allocation for each response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Our estimates in the adopting release for the 2020 Final
Rules assumed that 75% of the burden would be borne by the company
and 25% would be borne by outside counsel at $400 per hour. We
recognized that the costs of retaining outside professionals may
vary depending on the nature of the professional services, but for
purposes of the PRA analysis, we estimated that such costs would be
an average of $400 per hour. This estimate was based on
consultations with several registrants, law firms and other persons
who regularly assist registrants in preparing and filing reports
with the Commission. See 2020 Adopting Release at n.708.

              PRA Table 2--Increase in Burden Hours Resulting From the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) Conditions as Reflected in the 2020 Final Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Number of estimated    Total increase in burden  Increase in burden hours    Increase in internal          Increase in              Increase in
        responses                   hours                 per response                  hours              professional hours       professional costs
(A) [dagger]              (B) [dagger][dagger]                         (C) = (B)/((D) = (B) x 0.75          (E) = (B) x 0.25         (F) = (E) x $400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               6,369                   318,640      [dagger][dagger][dagger]               238,980                    79,660              $31,864,000
                                                                      50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] This number reflects an estimated increase of 783 annual responses to the existing Regulation 14A collection of information as a result of the
  Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions. See supra text accompanying note 144. The adopting release for the 2020 Final Rules indicated that 5,586 responses
  are filed annually. 2020 Adopting Release at 55151.
[dagger][dagger] Calculated as the sum of annual burden increases estimated for PVABs (34,140 hours) and registrants (284,500 hours). See supra PRA
  Table 1.
[dagger][dagger][dagger] The estimated increases in Columns (C), (D), and (E) are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Accordingly, we expect that our proposed amendments would allow the
affected parties to avoid these estimated burden hours and costs that
they would otherwise be subject to, absent the proposed amendments,
once Rule 14a-2(b)(9) becomes effective.
5. Program Change and Revised Burden Estimates
    PRA Table 3 summarizes the estimated change to the total annual
compliance burden of the Regulation 14A collection of information, in
hours and in costs, as a result of the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions,
as calculated in the PRA analysis for the 2020 Final Rules.

                 PRA Table 3--Paperwork Burden Under the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) Conditions as Reflected in the 2020 Final Rules--Reg. 14A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Current burden                                     Program change                                     Revised burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Increase in
Current annual  Current burden     Current cost      Increase in     Increase in      professional        Annual        Burden hours       Cost burden
   responses         hours            burden          responses    internal hours        costs           responses
(A)                      (B)                  (C)    (D)     minus>       minus>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       5,586         551,101        $73,480,012             783         238,980        $31,864,000           6,369            790,081      $105,344,012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 See Column (A) in PRA Table 2 noting an estimated increase of 783 annual responses to the Regulation 14A collection of information as a
  result of the Rule 14a-2(b)(9)(ii) conditions.
 See Column (D) in PRA Table 2.
 From Column (F) in PRA Table 2.

Accordingly, we expect that our proposed amendments would allow the
affected parties to avoid these estimated burden hours and costs that
they would otherwise be subject to, absent the proposed amendments,
once Rule 14a-2(b)(9) becomes effective.
Request for Comment
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B), we request comment in order
to:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information would have practical
utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy and assumptions and estimates of the
burden of the proposed collection of information;
     Determine whether there are ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
     Evaluate whether there are ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those who respond, including through
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and
     Evaluate whether the proposed amendments would have any
effects on any other collection of information not previously
identified in this section.
    Any member of the public may direct to us any comments concerning
the accuracy of these burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing
burdens. Persons submitting comments on the collection of information
requirements should direct their comments to the Office of Management
and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503, and send a copy to Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090, with reference to File No. S7-17-21.
Requests for materials submitted to OMB by the Commission with regard
to the collection of information should be in writing, refer to File
No. S7-17-21 and be submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of
this proposed rule. Consequently, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if the OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.

V. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (``SBREFA''),\146\ the Commission must advise OMB as to
whether the proposed amendments constitute a ``major'' rule. Under
SBREFA, a rule is considered ``major'' where, if adopted, it results or
is likely to result in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An annual effect on the U.S. economy of $100 million or
more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
     A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or
individual industries; or
     Significant adverse effects on competition, investment, or
innovation.
    We request comment on whether the proposed amendments would be a
``major rule'' for purposes of SBREFA. In particular, we request
comment on the potential effect of the proposed amendments on the U.S.
economy on an annual basis; any potential increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries; and any potential effect on
competition, investment or innovation. Commenters are requested to
provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the
extent possible.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \147\ requires the
Commission, in promulgating rules under Section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, to consider the impact of those rules on
small entities. The Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') in accordance with Section 603 of the
RFA.\148\ It relates to the proposed amendments to the proxy
solicitation exemptions in Rule 14a-2(b) and the prohibition on false
or misleading statements in solicitations in Rule 14a-9 of Regulation
14A under the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    \148\ 5 U.S.C. 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Reasons for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Action

    The purpose of the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-2(b)(9) is to
address concerns about the potential adverse effects of the 2020 Final
Rules on the independence, cost and timeliness of proxy voting advice,
while still achieving many of the intended benefits of the 2020 Final
Rules with respect to the quality of the advice provided to clients. In
addition, the purpose of the proposed amendment to Rule 14a-9 is to
avoid any misperception that the addition of Note (e) to Rule 14a-9
purported to determine or alter the law governing Rule 14a-9's
application and scope, including its application to statements of
opinion. The reasons for, and objectives of, these proposed amendments
are discussed in more detail in Sections I and II above.

B. Legal Basis

    We are proposing the rule and form amendments contained in this
document under the authority set forth in Sections 3(b), 14, 23(a) and
36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

C. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Amendments

    The proposed amendments are likely to affect some small entities;
specifically, those small entities that are

either: (i) PVABs; or (ii) registrants conducting solicitations covered
by proxy voting advice.
    The RFA defines ``small entity'' to mean ``small business,''
``small organization,'' or ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' \149\
For purposes of the RFA, under our rules, an issuer of securities or a
person, other than an investment company or an investment adviser, is a
``small business'' or ``small organization'' if it had total assets of
$5 million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal year.\150\
An investment company, including a business development company,\151\
is considered to be a ``small business'' if it, together with other
investment companies in the same group of related investment companies,
has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent
fiscal year.\152\ An investment adviser generally is a small entity if
it: (1) Has assets under management having a total value of less than
$25 million; (2) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the
last day of the most recent fiscal year; and (3) does not control, is
not controlled by, and is not under common control with another
investment adviser that has assets under management of $25 million or
more, or any person (other than a natural person) that had total assets
of $5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal
year.\153\ We estimate that there are 660 issuers that file with the
Commission, other than investment companies and investment advisers,
that may be considered small entities.\154\ In addition, we estimate
that, as of June 2021, there were 70 registered investment companies
that would be subject to the proposed amendments that may be considered
small entities.\155\ Finally, we estimate that, as of June 2021, there
were 548 investment advisers that may be considered small
entities.\156\ As discussed above, one of the three major PVABs in the
United States--ISS--is a registered investment advisor.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \150\ See Exchange Act Rule 0-10(a) [17 CFR 240.0-10(a)].
    \151\ Business development companies are a category of closed-
end investment company that are not registered under the Investment
Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(48) and 80a-53-64].
    \152\ See Investment Company Act Rule 0-10(a) [17 CFR 270.0-
10(a)].
    \153\ See Advisers Act Rule 0-7(a) [17 CFR 275.0-7(a)].
    \154\ This estimate is based on staff analysis of issuers
potentially subject to the final amendments, excluding co-
registrants, with EDGAR filings on Form 10-K, or amendments thereto,
filed during the calendar year of January 1, 2020 to December 31,
2020, or filed by September 1, 2021, that, if timely filed by the
applicable deadline, would have been filed between January 1 and
December 31, 2020. This analysis is based on data from XBRL filings,
Compustat, Ives Group Audit Analytics, and manual review of filings
submitted to the Commission.
    \155\ This estimate is derived from an analysis of data obtained
from Morningstar Direct as well as data filed with the Commission
(Forms N-Q and N-CSR) for the second quarter of 2021.
    \156\ Based on SEC-registered investment adviser responses to
Items 5.F. and 12 of Form ADV.
    \157\ See supra Section III.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

    If adopted, the proposed amendments would apply to small entities
to the same extent as other entities, irrespective of size. Therefore,
we expect that the nature of any benefits and costs associated with the
proposed amendments would be similar for large and small entities.
Accordingly, we refer to the discussion of the proposed amendments'
economic effects on all affected parties, including small entities, in
Section III above.\158\ Consistent with that discussion, we anticipate
that the economic benefits and costs likely would vary widely among
small entities based on a number of factors, including the nature and
conduct of their businesses, which makes it difficult to project the
economic impact on small entities with precision.\159\ Compliance with
the proposed amendments may require the use of professional skills,
including legal skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ In particular, we discuss the estimated benefits and costs
of the proposed amendments on affected parties in Section III.B.
supra. We also discuss the estimated compliance burden associated
with the proposed amendments for purposes of the PRA in Section IV
supra.
    \159\ See supra Section III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, however, we recognize that any costs of the
proposed amendments borne by the affected entities could have a
proportionally greater effect on small entities, as they may be less
able to bear such costs relative to larger entities. For example, as
discussed in Section III.B.2, the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-
2(b)(9) could potentially reduce the overall mix of information
available to PVABs' clients as they assess proxy voting advice and make
determinations about how to cast votes. Further, as noted in Section
III.C, small institutions tend to rely more heavily on PVABs' proxy
voting advice than larger institutions because those smaller
institutions have more limited resources to conduct their own research.
As such, to the extent the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-2(b)(9)
reduce the overall mix of information available to PVABs' clients in
connection with PVABs' proxy voting advice, the costs associated by
such reduction would be borne disproportionately by smaller
institutions. That said, as discussed in Section III.B.2, we expect
that any such costs imposed on PVABs' clients would be mitigated to the
extent that PVABs currently have internal policies and procedures aimed
at enabling feedback from certain registrants before they issue proxy
voting advice. However, we request comment on the extent to which
PVABs' current internal policies and procedures would mitigate any
costs imposed on PVABs' clients as a result of the proposed amendments
to Rule 14a-2(b)(9).
    We do not expect that PVABs or registrants would incur significant
costs as a result of the proposed amendments to Rule 14a-2(b)(9).
However, we request comment on how PVABs and registrants may be
affected by the proposed amendments.
    Finally, as discussed in Section III.B.2. above, we do not expect
the proposed amendment to Rule 14a-9 would create any significant
costs. However, we request comment on how the proposed amendment may
affect PVABs, their clients and registrants.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We believe that the proposed amendments would not duplicate,
overlap or conflict with other Federal rules.

F. Significant Alternatives

    The RFA directs us to consider alternatives that would accomplish
our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact
on small entities. In connection with the proposed amendments, we
considered the following alternatives:
     Establishing different compliance or reporting
requirements that take into account the resources available to small
entities;
     Exempting small entities from all or part of the
requirements;
     Using performance rather than design standards; and
     Clarifying, consolidating, or simplifying compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for small entities.
    The purpose of these proposed amendments is to address concerns
about the potential adverse effects of the 2020 Final Rules on the
independence, cost and timeliness of proxy voting advice, while still
achieving many of the intended benefits of the 2020 Final Rules with
respect to the quality of the advice provided to PVABs' clients. The
proposed amendments do not impose any compliance or reporting

requirements; rather, they would remove certain conditions for PVABs of
all sizes, including small entities. Our objectives would not be served
by establishing different compliance or reporting requirements for
small entities, exempting small entities from all or part of the
requirements, or clarifying, consolidating or simplifying compliance
and reporting requirements for small entities. Similarly, because the
proposed amendments do not set forth any standards, our objectives
would not be served by establishing performance rather than design
standards.

VII. Statutory Authority

    We are proposing the rule amendments contained in this release
under the authority set forth in Sections 3(b), 14, 23(a) and 36 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 240

    Brokers, Confidential business information, Fraud, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Text of Proposed Rule Amendments

    In accordance with the foregoing, the Securities and Exchange
Commission proposes to amend title 17, chapter II of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 240--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

0
1. The general authority citation for part 240 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3,
77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78c-3, 78c-5, 78d, 78e, 78f,
78g, 78i, 78j, 78j-1, 78k, 78k-1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78o-4,
78o-10, 78p, 78q, 78q-1, 78s, 78u-5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, 78mm, 80a-20,
80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-11, 7201 et seq., and
8302; 7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(E); 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3); 18 U.S.C. 1350;
Pub. L. 111-203, 939A, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010); and Pub. L. 112-106,
sec. 503 and 602, 126 Stat. 326 (2012), unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
0
2. Amend Sec.  240.14a-2 by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as
follows:

Sec.  240.14a-2  Solicitations to which Sec.  240.14a-3 to Sec.
240.14a-15 apply.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) Paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of this section shall not be
available to a person furnishing proxy voting advice covered by Sec.
240.14a-1(l)(1)(iii)(A) (``proxy voting advice business'') unless the
proxy voting advice business includes in its proxy voting advice or in
an electronic medium used to deliver the proxy voting advice prominent
disclosure of:
    (i) Any information regarding an interest, transaction, or
relationship of the proxy voting advice business (or its affiliates)
that is material to assessing the objectivity of the proxy voting
advice in light of the circumstances of the particular interest,
transaction, or relationship; and
    (ii) Any policies and procedures used to identify, as well as the
steps taken to address, any such material conflicts of interest arising
from such interest, transaction, or relationship.

Sec.  240.14a-9  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  240.14a-9 by removing paragraph e. of the Note.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: November 17, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25420 Filed 11-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P