[Federal Register: October 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 201)]
[Notices]
[Page 60864-60865]
[DOCID:fr19oc05-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

    Extension: Rule 12d2-1, SEC File No. 270-98, OMB Control No.
3235-0081; Rule 12d2-2, SEC File No. 270-86, OMB Control No. 3235-
0080

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved
collections of information discussed below.
    Rule 12d2-1 was adopted in 1935 pursuant to Sections 12 and 23 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''). Rule 12d2-1 provides the
procedures by which a national securities exchange may suspend from
trading a security that is listed and

registered on the exchange. Under Rule 12d2-1, an exchange is permitted
to suspend from trading a listed security in accordance with its rules,
and must promptly notify the Commission of any such suspension, along
with the effective date and the reasons for the suspension.
    Any such suspension may be continued until such time as the
Commission may determine that the suspension is designed to evade the
provisions of Section 12(d) of the Act and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder.\1\
During the continuance of such suspension under Rule 12d2-1, the
exchange is required to notify the Commission promptly of any change in
the reasons for the suspension. Upon the restoration to trading of any
security suspended under Rule 12d2-1, the exchange must notify the
Commission promptly of the effective date of such restoration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 12d2-2 prescribes the circumstances under which a
security may be delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from
registration under Section 12(b) of the Act, and provides the
procedures for taking such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trading suspension notices serve a number of purposes. First,
they inform the Commission that an exchange has suspended from trading
a listed security or reintroduced trading in a previously suspended
security. They also provide the Commission with information necessary
for it to determine that the suspension has been accomplished in
accordance with the rules of the exchange, and to verify that the
exchange has not evaded the requirements of Section 12(d) of the Act
and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder by improperly employing a trading
suspension. Without Rule 12d2-1, the Commission would be unable to
fully implement these statutory responsibilities.
    There are nine national securities exchanges that are subject to
Rule 12d2-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-1 is not evenly
distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many more
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'') and
the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'') than on the other
exchanges.\2\ However, for purposes of this filing, it is assumed that
the number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges. Since
approximately 104 responses under Rule 12d2-1 are received annually by
the Commission from the national securities exchanges, the resultant
aggregate annual reporting hour burden would be, assuming on average
one-half reporting hour per response, 52 annual burden hours for all
exchanges. The related costs associated with these burden hours are
$2886.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In fact, some exchanges do not file any trading suspension
reports in a given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 were adopted in 1935 and 1952,
respectively, pursuant to Sections 12 and 23 of the Act. Rule 12d2-2
sets forth the conditions and procedures under which a security may be
delisted from an exchange and withdrawn from registration under Section
12(b) of the Act. The Commission has recently adopted amendments to
Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25.\3\ The amendments will become effective on
August 22, 2005 and the compliance date of the amendments is April 24,
2006. Under the amended Rule 12d2-2, all issuers and national
securities exchanges seeking to delist and deregister a security in
accordance with the rules of an exchange will file the newly adopted
version of Form 25 with the Commission. The Commission has also adopted
amendments to Rule 19d-1 under the Act to require exchanges to file the
newly adopted version of Form 25 as notice to the Commission under
Section 19(d) of the Act. Finally, the Commission has adopted
amendments to exempt options and security futures from Section 12(d) of
the Act. These amendments are intended to simplify the paperwork and
procedure associated with a delisting and to unify general rules and
procedures relating to the delisting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Form 25 is useful because it informs the Commission that a
security previously traded on an exchange is no longer traded. In
addition, the Form 25 enables the Commission to verify that the
delisting has occurred in accordance with the rules of the exchange.
Further, the Form 25 helps to focus the attention of delisting issuers
to make sure that they abide by the proper procedural and notice
requirements associated with a delisting. Without Rule 12d2-2 and the
Form 25, as applicable, the Commission would be unable to fulfill its
statutory responsibilities.
    There are seven national securities exchanges that trade equity
securities that will be respondents subject to Rule 12d2-2 and Form
25.\4\ The burden of complying with Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 is not
evenly distributed among the exchanges, however, since there are many
more securities listed on the NYSE and the Amex than on the other
exchanges. However, for purposes of this filing, the staff has assumed
that the number of responses is evenly divided among the exchanges.
Since approximately 648 responses under Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 for the
purpose of delisting equity securities are received annually by the
Commission from the national securities exchanges, the resultant
aggregate annual reporting hour burden would be, assuming on average
one hour per response, 648 annual burden hours for all exchanges. In
addition, since approximately 57 responses are received by the
Commission annually from issuers wishing to remove their securities
from listing and registration on exchanges, the Commission staff
estimates that the aggregate annual reporting hour burden on issuers
would be, assuming on average one reporting hour per response, 57
annual burden hours for all issuers. Accordingly, the total annual hour
burden for all respondents to comply with Rule 12d2-2 is 705 hours. The
related costs associated with these burden hours are $37,830.00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We note that there are two additional national securities
exchanges that only trade standardized options which, as noted
above, are exempt from Rule 12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information obligations imposed by Rule 12d2-1,
Rule 12d2-2 and Form 25 are mandatory. The response will be available
to the public and will not be kept confidential. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: October 10, 2005.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5744 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52384-52385]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20867]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72932; File No. SR-BYX-2014-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

August 27, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 15, 2014, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently filed a proposed rule change to adopt two new
routing options called ``SWPA'' and ``SWPB'' (collectively the ``SWP
routing strategies'').\6\ The Exchange notes that SWPA is substantively
identical to, and SWPB is similar to, the Exchange's current Parallel T
routing strategy.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See SR-BYX-2014-015, filed on August 11, 2014, available at
http://www.batstrading.com/regulation/rulefilings/byx/.
    \7\ In order to allow a gradual migration from Parallel T to the
proposed SWP routing strategies the Exchange is not proposing to
eliminate Parallel T when it starts offering the SWP routing
strategies. Instead, the Exchange proposes to continue to accept
orders designated for Parallel T routing and will eventually retire
such routing strategy and remove reference to the routing strategy
from Exchange rules once all affected Users have been migrated away
from Parallel T to the SWP routing strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to modify its fee schedule to adopt fees
applicable to the SWP routing strategies that are identical to the
current fees charged for Parallel T. For order routed pursuant to the
SWP routing strategies and executed on an away trading venue, the
Exchange proposes to charge $0.033 per share in securities priced at or
above $1.00 and 0.33% of the total dollar value of the execution for
securities priced below $1.00. The Exchange proposes to implement the
amendments to its fee schedule on August 15, 2014.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Exchange's
fee schedule to add fees for the SWP routing strategies represents
[sic] an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among Members and other persons using its facilities because
they are identical to the fees charged for executions through an
analogous routing strategy, Parallel T, which is currently offered by
the Exchange. Lastly, the Exchange notes that the use of the SWP
routing strategies is voluntary and believes that the proposed change
is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Because the market for order execution is extremely competitive,
Members may readily opt to disfavor the Exchange's routing services if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. For orders
routed through the Exchange through the SWP routing strategies the
proposed fee is equal to the fee currently charged for Parallel T
routing. As stated above, the Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if the deem fee structures to be
unreasonable or excessive.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2014-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2014-017 and should be
submitted on or before September 24, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2014-20867 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18974-18975]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-12-004]

Increasing Market and Planning Efficiency Through Improved
Software; Notice of Technical Conference: Increasing Real-Time and Day-
Ahead Market Efficiency Through Improved Software

    Take notice that Commission staff will convene a technical
conference on June 24, 25, and 26, 2013 to discuss opportunities for
increasing real-time and day-ahead market efficiency through improved
software. A detailed agenda with the list of and times for the selected
speakers will be published on the Commission's Web site \1\ after May
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/market-planning.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This conference will bring together experts from diverse
backgrounds and experiences including electric system operators,
software developers, government, research centers and academia for the
purposes of stimulating discussion, sharing information, and
identifying fruitful avenues for research concerning the technical
aspects of improved software for increasing efficiency. This conference
is intended to build on the discussions initiated in the previous
Commission staff technical conferences on increasing market and
planning efficiency through improved software. As such, staff will be
facilitating a discussion to explore research and steps needed to
implement approaches to market modeling which appear to have
significant promise for potential efficiency improvements in the
following areas: Stochastic modeling; optimal transmission switching;
AC optimal power flow modeling; and use of active and dynamic
transmission ratings.
    In particular we solicit proposals for presentations on topics and
questions such as the following:
    (1) Stochastic modeling for unit commitment and operating reserves:
Given the difficulty in formulating and solving full-scale stochastic
unit-commitment problems, what interim steps might be taken to more
intelligently incorporate information about uncertainty into unit-
commitment and dispatch? Specifically:
     How can uncertainty be described in a manageable set of
scenarios or constraints that improve unit-commitment and dispatch
while

allowing good solutions to be achieved in the required timeframe?
     If a stochastic unit-commitment model is used, how should
day-ahead prices be calculated, given that the stochastic formulation
no longer produces as part of its solution a single set of
deterministic shadow prices for power at each location?
     How would a stochastic day-ahead unit commitment mechanism
alter current market software for other processes (for example,
reliability unit-commitment processes)?
     What steps toward better incorporation of uncertainty into
unit-commitment might be taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
     What methods can be used to calculate requirements for
contingency reserves and regulating reserves?
    [cir] How can reserves calculations more completely capture the
uncertainty and variability of the system, including forecast error?
    [cir] How can outage probability be captured in contingency reserve
calculations, and how good is the available data?
    [cir] What methods can be used to determine reserve zones?
    (2) Optimal transmission switching:
     Simple optimal DC transmission switching appears to
represent a potentially solvable technical problem using existing
computational resources if transmission operators optimize only a small
number of transmission switch positions. It is less clear whether
transmission switching model formulations that include realistic
representations of reliability requirements are solvable. What is the
performance of these more complex model formulations?
     What additional computational impediments, if any, exist
to implementing optimal transmission switching over a small number of
switches while maintaining reliability?
     Optimal AC transmission switching presents additional
technical problems. What is the performance of these formulations?
     What steps toward optimal transmission switching might be
taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
    (3) AC optimal power flow modeling:
     What is the current state of computational capability with
respect to dependably solving AC optimal power flow problems, including
analysis of power system reliability?
     Discussions during previous conferences have centered on
concerns that current system data quality might not allow for an AC
optimal power flow model to be properly formulated and solved. What are
the specific data concerns, and what needs to be done to address them?
What accuracy of solutions is good enough for convergence parameters?
     What steps toward use of AC optimal power flow modeling
might be taken over the next 5 to 10 years?
    (4) Transmission limit modeling:
     Previous presentations examined the use of post-
contingency analysis when determining transmission ratings, including
consideration of availability of ramping capability. How can (or have)
adaptive transmission ratings been implemented?
     Previous presentations also examined how transmission
ratings might be updated in real time in response to ambient
conditions. How have such dynamic transmission ratings been
implemented?
     What are the data or computational challenges associated
with implementing adaptive or dynamic transmission ratings?
     How can inter-temporal considerations regarding
transmission line loadings and limits be incorporated into economic
dispatch algorithms?
    (5) Improvement in linear programs, nonlinear programs and MIPs for
faster and/or better solutions.
    (6) New more efficient approaches to loop flow and joint dispatch.
How much inefficiency exists in the current process?
    Discussion of these topics should highlight any advances made since
last year's conference and provide context for any proposals or
presentations on best practices, other analyses of current operations
with respect to these and related topics, and provide opportunity to
discuss existing practices that need improvement.
    The technical conference will be held in conference rooms 3M-2, 3M-
3, and 3M-4 at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. All interested participants are
invited to attend, and participants with ideas for relevant
presentations are invited to nominate themselves to speak at the
conference.
    Speaker nominations must be submitted on or before April 26, 2013
through the Commission's Web site \2\ by providing the proposed
speaker's contact information along with a title, abstract, and list of
contributing authors for the proposed presentation. Proposed
presentations should be closely related to the topics discussed above.
Speakers and presentations will be selected to ensure relevant topics
and to accommodate time constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The speaker nomination form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-24-13-speaker-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although registration is not required for general attendance by
United States citizens, we encourage those planning to attend the
conference to register through the Commission's Web site.\3\ We will
provide nametags for those who register on or before June 20, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The registration form is located at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-24-13-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to new security procedures, we strongly encourage attendees who
are not citizens of the United States to register for the conference by
June 1, 2013, in order to avoid any delay associated with being
processed by FERC security.
    The Commission will accept comments following the conference, with
a deadline of July 31, 2013.
    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>.
    Teleconferencing and WebEx will be available. Off-site participants
interested in attending via teleconference or viewing the presentations
through WebEx must register at https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/real-market-6-24-13-form.asp, and do so by close of
business on June 17, 2013. WebEx and teleconferencing may not be
available to those who do not register.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For further information about these conferences, please contact:
Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Bak (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 22, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-07216 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


10.00
                                                                        $312.60
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $312.60
+ Subtotal
                                                                         122.00
                                                                      $4,305.24
                                                                         $84.10
                                                                      $4,389.34
Testing Exemptions Applications
    Reporting
                                                                          16.00
                                                                      $1,251.52
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                      $1,251.52
    Recordkeeping
                                                                           1.00
                                                                         $31.26
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                         $31.26
+ Subtotal
                                                                          17.00
                                                                      $1,282.78
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                      $1,282.78
CDX Registration

Registration
                                                                          4.452
                                   $321.55
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $321.55
Total Burden/Cost
                                                                       3,127.00

                                                                    $222,886.83
Testing Costs
                                                                  $9,010,064.97
OVERALL TOTAL COSTS
                                                                     $9,232,952

      Total Agency Annual Hours and Costs

      The total annual burden hours and costs for the government as detailed in Table 19, is estimated at 554 hours and $38,553.

      6(e)	Reasons for Change in Burden

      This request represents a decrease of 626,766 hours from that currently in the OMB inventory (from 629,893 to 3,127 hours). As shown in Table 21, this decrease is due mainly to corrections to the previous renewal of this collection (-534,060 hours), plus reduced levels of activity in test rules given the decrease from 90 responses to 10 responses (-82,960 hours). Additionally, e-reporting produced burden reductions (-2,577 hours). Last, methodological corrections and updates produced newly defined unit burdens and adjustments to total burden (-7,169 hours). The decrease associated with e-reporting is a program change; the rest of the decrease is an adjustment.

Table 21: Reasons for the Change in Burden
                          Information Collection (IC)
Previous ICR       (as reported in Notice of OMB Action 8/28/13)[a]
                    Calculation Corrections to Previous ICR
                     Previous ICR  Corrected Estimates[b]
                                    Changes
                                  ICR Renewal

1) Reduction in Section 4 Test Rules[c]
2) Program Change of e-Reporting[d]
3) Methodology Correction and Updates[e]

                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
                                     Unit
                                     Total
CDX Registration

                                                                           0.53
                                                                           4.45
                                                                           0.00
                                                                           0.00
                                                                           0.53
                                                                           4.45
Test Rules
                                                                            263
                                                                        620,191
                                                                              0
                                                                       -526,501
                                                                            263
                                                                         93,690
                                                                              0
                                                                        -82,960
                                                                         -31.00
                                                                      -2,050.00
                                                                          16.66
                                                                      -6,193.40
                                                                         248.66
                                                                       2,486.60
Testing Agreements: COs, ETAs, and VCAs
                                                                            263
                                                                          9,431
                                                                              0
                                                                         -7,429
                                                                            263
                                                                          2,002
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                         -31.00
                                                                        -530.00
                                                                          16.66
                                                                        -974.68
                                                                         248.66
                                                                         497.32
Voluntary Submissions
                                                                             23
                                                                            253
                                                                              0
                                                                           -130
                                                                             23
                                                                            123
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.00
                                                                           0.00
                                                                          99.00
                                                                          -1.00
                                                                         122.00
                                                                         122.00
Testing Exemption Applications
                                                                              9
                                                                             18
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              9
                                                                             18
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                          -0.50
                                                                          -1.00
                                                                           0.00
                                                                           0.00
                                                                           8.50
                                                                          17.00
TOTAL

                                                                        629,893

                                                                       -534,060

                                                                         95,833

                                                                        -82,960

                                                                         -2,577

                                                                         -7,169

                                                                          3,127
Note: All unit and total burden estimates are reported in hours.
Footnotes:
[a] The breakdown according to IC is approximate, based on Supporting Statement posted on reginfo.gov, as adjusted by the final Notice of OMB Action, assuming the difference of 2,395 hours is entirely due to updates to the Test Rules burden estimate.
[b] Verification of totals from detailed calculations versus totals in IC Entry Tables confirmed that calculation errors occurred (US EPA 2013c).
[c] In the previous ICR, the conditions include six rules annually, each involving an average of 15 chemicals (90 responses). In this ICR renewal, conditions include two rules annually, each involving an average of 5 chemicals.
[d] The primary effects of the e-reporting rule on burden estimates involve cutting recordkeeping burden to half its paper-based value, eliminating clerical burden in other activities, and adding an activity to account for electronic registration. Additionally non-labor costs are eliminated due to reductions in paper and postage costs. See Table D of Attachment 3.
[e] Two key changes are implemented in the methodology update. First, the response definition is changed from a per-activity to a per-chemical metric. A response is now defined as the collection of activities pertaining to the "standard" testing battery of 10 tests (seven short-term; three long term), all of which are performed on one specified chemical. Second, for test rules and testing agreements, the annual rate for activities is rigorously calculated (i.e., prorated) to accurately reflect the assumption that long term studies are three years in duration. Additionally, minor changes were made to activity-level burdens to improve consistency, including the addition of "Laboratory Review" to long-term studies' reports, and the adjustment to recordkeeping for Voluntary Submissions.

      6(f)	Burden Statement

      The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0033, is estimated to range between 8.5 and 243 hours per response, not including CDX registration, and 0.53 hours per CDX registration. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current and valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

      The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

      You may submit comments regarding the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques. Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436 and OMB Control No. 2070-0033, to both EPA and OMB as follows:

      - To EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and

      - To OMB by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

                    ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0436. These attachments are available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov.

Attachment 1:	15 U.S.C. 2603, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Section 4

Attachment 2:	40 CFR 790, Procedures Governing Testing Consent Agreements and Test Rules

Attachment 3:	Economic Analysis Tables

Attachment 4:	Public Comment Received from the American Chemistry Council

Attachment 5:	EPA's Response to the Public Comment

Attachment 6:	Consultations Message Sent by EPA to Potential Respondents

 References

FedEx. 2015. Postage based on 0.4 lb package shipped 3-day business rate from Kansas City MO to Washington DC. Accessed October 15, 2015. Available at: https://www.fedex.com/ratefinder/home?cc=US&language=en&locId=express.
 Piccirillo. 2004. Vincent Piccirillo, personal communication. September 20, 2004.

Rice, C. 2002. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. June 10, 2002.
Staples. 2015. Staples Copy Paper. Accessed October 15, 2015. Available at: http://www.staples.com/Staples-Copy-Paper-8-1-2-x-11-Case/product_135848.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2015, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006  -  December 2014. Accessed March 19, 2015. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuphst.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2014, Employment Cost Index (ECI) Continuous Occupational and Industry Historical Listing Series, September 1975 to Present. Document titled "Employment Cost Index Historical Listing - Volume V" July 2014. Series: All Private Workers Total Compensation --  not seasonally adjusted). Accessed September 16, 2015. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/web/eci/ecicois.pdf.
US EPA. 2002. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. August, 2002. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260.
US EPA. 2009. ICR Handbook EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Revised 10/2009 Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information.

 US EPA. 2013a. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Filename: Standard Nano Test Costs 9-01-2013.xls.

 US EPA 2013b. Economic Analysis for the Electronic Reporting under the Toxic Substances Act (TSCA) Final Rule. Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainability Strategies Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0519. June 17, 2013.

US EPA 2013c. Information Collection Request (ICR): TSCA Section 4 Test Rules, Consent Orders, Enforceable Consent Agreements, Voluntary Testing Agreements, Voluntary Data Submissions, and Exemptions from Testing Requirement. EPA ICR No: 1139.09. OMB Control No: 2070-0033. Retrieved from reginfo.gov dated August 26, 2012, as entered/renewed August 16, 2013.
US EPA 2015. Information Collection Request (ICR): Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for Section 5 Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances. EPA ICR No: 0574.15. OMB Control No: 2070-0012. Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0735-0002 March 3, 2015.
 U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 2014. Salary Table 2014-DCB. Retrieved March 19, 2015 from Pay & Leave: Salaries & Wages: www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/14Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81604]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-5-000]

City of Riverside, California; Notice of Filing

December 21, 2010.
    Take notice that on December 13, 2010, the City of Riverside,
California submitted its annual revision to its Transmission Revenue
Balancing Account Adjustment and a related modification to Appendix I
of its Transmission Owner Tariff.
    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. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 3, 2011.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32643 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life & I have had nothing but positive effects as a result from the use of e-cigarettes. Using e-cigarettes helps so many people everyday like me to have a chance at a life without cigarettes. I wish to provide you with more of my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4341-4346]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00954]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0316; FRL-9771-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Alabama; Redesignation of
the Birmingham 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area
to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
May 2, 2011, from the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management (ADEM), Air Division, to redesignate the
Birmingham fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
area (hereafter referred to as the ``Birmingham Area'' or

``Area'') to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The Birmingham 1997 Annual
PM2.5 nonattainment area is comprised of Jefferson and
Shelby Counties in their entireties and a portion of Walker County.
EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on the
determination that the State of Alabama has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act), including the determination that the Birmingham Area has attained
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving
a revision to the Alabama state implementation plan (SIP) to include
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Birmingham
Area that contains the new 2024 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and PM2.5. This action
also approves the 2009 emissions inventory submitted with the
maintenance plan.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective on February 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0316. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for the actions?
II. What are the actions EPA is taking?
III. Why is EPA taking these actions?
IV. What are the effects of these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    As stated in our proposed approval notice published on November 10,
2011 (76 FR 70078), this redesignation action addresses the Birmingham
Area's status solely with respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS, for which designations were finalized on January 5, 2005 (70 FR
944) and April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844). On May 2, 2011, the State of
Alabama, through ADEM, submitted a request to redesignate the
Birmingham Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS and for EPA approval of the Alabama SIP revisions containing a
maintenance plan for the Area. In the November 10, 2011, notice, EPA
proposed to take the following three separate but related actions, some
of which involve multiple elements: (1) To redesignate the Birmingham
Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, provided
EPA approves the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance
plan; (2) to approve into the Alabama SIP, under section 175A of the
CAA, Alabama's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan,
including the associated MVEBs; and (3) to approve, under CAA section
172(c)(3), the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan.
No comments were received on the proposed action. EPA is now taking
final action on the three actions identified above. Additional
background for today's action, and other details regarding the proposed
redesignation, is set forth in EPA's November 10, 2011, proposal and is
summarized below. The following information also: (1) Affirms that the
most recent available ambient monitoring data continue to support this
redesignation action, (2) summarizes the NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for the year 2024 for the Birmingham Area, and
(3) provides additional information on events that have occurred since
the November 10, 2011, proposal.
    With regard to the data, EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient
monitoring data, which indicate that the Birmingham Area continues to
attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the 3-year
attainment period of 2008-2010, which was provided with Alabama's May
2, 2011, submittal and request for redesignation. As stated in EPA's
November 10, 2011, proposal notice, the 3-year design value of 13.7
[mu]g/m\3\ for 2008-2010 meets the NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Quality
assured and certified data now in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for
2011 provide a 3-year design value of 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2009-2011.
Furthermore, preliminary monitoring data for 2012 indicate that the
Area is continuing to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The 2012 preliminary data are available in AQS although are not yet
quality assured and certified.
    The MVEBs, specified in tons per year (tpy), included in the
maintenance plan are as shown in Table 1 below. In the November 10,
2011, proposed action, EPA noted that the period for public comment on
the adequacy of these MVEBs (as contained in Alabama's submittal) began
on March 24, 2011, and closed on April 25, 2011. No comments were
received during the public comment period. Through this final action,
EPA is finding the 2024 NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs
adequate for transportation conformity purposes and finalizing the
approval of the budgets.

                Table 1--Birmingham Area PM2.5 NOX MVEBs
                                  [tpy]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               PM2.5            NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 On-road Mobile Emissions...........          335.70        8,738.39
Safety Margin Allocated to MVEBs........          106.37        7,243.11
2024 Conformity MVEBs...................          442.07       15,981.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 10, 2011, proposed redesignation of the Birmingham
Area, EPA proposed to determine that the emission reduction
requirements that contributed to attainment of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 standard in the

nonattainment area could be considered permanent and enforceable. See
76 FR at 70092, 70097-70099. At the time of proposal, EPA noted that
the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR),\1\ which had
been in place since 2005, were to be replaced, starting in 2012, by the
requirements in the then recently promulgated Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR included regulatory
changes to sunset (i.e., discontinue) the CAIR requirements for control
periods in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR at 48322. Although Alabama's
redesignation request and maintenance plan included reductions
associated with CAIR, EPA proposed to approve the request based in part
on the fact that CSAPR achieved similar or greater reductions in the
relevant areas in 2012 and beyond. See 76 FR at 70092, 70097-70099.
Because CSAPR requirements were expected to replace the CAIR
requirements starting in 2012, EPA considered the impact of CSAPR
related reductions on the Birmingham Area. On this basis, EPA proposed
to determine that, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), the
pollutant transport part of the reductions that led to attainment in
the Birmingham Area could be considered permanent and enforceable. See
76 FR at 70079, 70084-70086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires
significant reductions in emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX from electric generating units
to limit the interstate transport of these pollutants and the ozone
and fine particulate matter they form in the atmosphere. See 70 FR
25162. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately remanded the rule
to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits
provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C.
Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2011, shortly after EPA's proposed approval of the
Birmingham redesignation, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order,
the court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review
of that rule in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and
consolidated cases), also referred to as EME Homer City. The court also
indicated that EPA was expected to continue to administer CAIR in the
interim until judicial review of CSAPR was completed. Subsequently, on
August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City
to vacate and remand CSAPR and to keep CAIR in place. Specifically, the
court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR pending the
promulgation of a valid replacement. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit has not yet
issued the final mandate in EME Homer City as EPA (as well as several
intervenors) petitioned for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to
review the decision. While rehearing proceedings are pending, EPA
intends to act in accordance with the panel opinion in the EME Homer
City opinion.
    Subsequent to the EME Homer City opinion, EPA published several
proposals to redesignate both particulate matter and ozone
nonattainment areas to attainment. These proposals explained the legal
status of CAIR and CSAPR, and provided a basis on which EPA would
consider emissions reductions associated with CAIR to be permanent and
enforceable for redesignation purposes, pursuant to CAA section
107(d)(3)(D)(iii). In those actions, EPA explained that in light of the
August 21, 2012, order by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR remains in place and
enforceable until substituted by a ``valid'' replacement rule. See,
e.g., 77 FR 69409 (November 19, 2012); 77 FR 68087 (November 15, 2012).
    Alabama's May 2, 2011, SIP submittal supporting its redesignation
request includes CAIR as a control measure, which became state-
effective on April 3, 2007, and was approved by EPA on October 1, 2007,
for the purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX
emissions. See 72 FR 55659. Due to the legal status of CSAPR at the
time that EPA proposed approval of Alabama's May 2, 2011, redesignation
submittal, EPA was able to rely on CSAPR related reductions. EPA also
recognized that the monitoring data used to demonstrate the Birmingham
Area's attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS included
reductions associated with CAIR. Due to the uncertainty regarding the
legal status of CAIR when Alabama provided its submittal on May 2,
2011, the State's analysis assumed that no additional reductions in
SO2 or NOX emissions from utilities would occur
above and beyond those achieved through 2012 as a result of CAIR. To
the extent that the Alabama submittal relies on CAIR reductions that
occurred through 2012, the recent directive from the D.C. Circuit in
EME Homer City ensures that the reductions associated with CAIR will be
permanent and enforceable for the necessary time period for purposes of
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii). EPA has been ordered by the court to
develop a new rule, and the opinion makes clear that after promulgating
that new rule EPA must provide states an opportunity to draft and
submit SIPs to implement that rule. CAIR thus cannot be replaced until
EPA has promulgated a final rule through a notice-and-comment
rulemaking process; states have had an opportunity to draft and submit
SIPs; EPA has reviewed the SIPs to determine if they can be approved;
and EPA has taken action on the SIPs, including promulgating a Federal
Implementation Plan, if appropriate. The court's clear instruction to
EPA is that it must continue to administer CAIR until a ``valid
replacement'' exists, and thus CAIR reductions may be relied upon until
the necessary actions are taken by EPA and states to administer CAIR's
replacement. Furthermore, the court's instruction provides an
additional backstop; by definition, any rule that replaces CAIR and
meets the court's direction would require upwind states to have SIPs
that eliminate significant contributions to downwind nonattainment and
prevent interference with maintenance in downwind areas.
    Further, in deciding to vacate CSAPR and to require EPA to continue
administering CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that the consequences
of vacating CAIR ``might be more severe now in light of the reliance
interests accumulated over the intervening four years.'' EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated reliance interests include the
interests of states who reasonably assumed they could rely on
reductions associated with CAIR, which brought certain nonattainment
areas into attainment with the NAAQS. If EPA were prevented from
relying on reductions associated with CAIR in redesignation actions,
states would be forced to impose additional, redundant reductions on
top of those achieved by CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the type
of irrational result the court sought to avoid by ordering EPA to
continue administering CAIR. For these reasons also, EPA believes it is
appropriate to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the existing emissions
reductions achieved by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and enforceable
for purposes such as redesignation. Following promulgation of the
replacement rule, EPA will review SIPs as appropriate to identify
whether there are any issues that need to be addressed.
    In light of these unique circumstances and for the reasons
explained above, EPA is approving the redesignation request and the
related SIP revision for Jefferson and Shelby Counties in their
entireties and a portion of Walker County in Alabama, including
Alabama's plan for maintaining attainment of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Birmingham Area. EPA

continues to implement CAIR in accordance with current direction from
the court, and thus CAIR is in place and enforceable, and will remain
so, until substituted by a valid replacement rule. Alabama's SIP
revision lists CAIR as a control measure, which became state-effective
on April 3, 2007, and was approved by EPA on October 1, 2007, for the
purpose of reducing SO2 and NOX emissions. The
monitoring data used to demonstrate the Area's attainment of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the April 2010 attainment deadline was
impacted by CAIR.

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving: (1) A change to the legal
designation of the Birmingham Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) under CAA section 175A,
Alabama's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan,
including the associated MVEBs; and (3) under CAA section 172(c)(3),
the emissions inventory submitted with the maintenance plan for the
Area. The maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that the
Birmingham Area will continue to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS through 2024. EPA's approval of the
redesignation request is based on EPA's determination that the
Birmingham Area meets the criteria for redesignation set forth in CAA,
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, including EPA's determination that the
Birmingham Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's analyses of Alabama's redesignation request, emissions inventory,
and maintenance plan are described in detail in the November 10, 2011,
proposed rule (76 FR 70078).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes 2024 NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the
Birmingham Area. In this action, EPA is approving these NOX
and PM2.5 MVEBs for the Birmingham Area for the purposes of
transportation conformity. For required regional emissions analysis
years that involve 2024 or beyond, the applicable budgets will be the
new 2024 NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Birmingham Area has attained the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and has also determined that all other
criteria for the redesignation of the Birmingham Area from
nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
have been met. See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements
is that the Birmingham Area has an approved plan demonstrating
maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also
taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Birmingham
Area as meeting the requirements of sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the new NOX and
PM2.5 MVEBs for the year 2024 for the Birmingham Area as
contained in Alabama's maintenance plan because these MVEBs are
consistent with maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5
standard in the Birmingham Area. Finally, EPA is approving the
emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA. The detailed rationale for EPA's determinations and actions
are set forth in the proposed rulemaking and in other discussion in
this final rulemaking.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the Birmingham Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is modifying the regulatory table in
40 CFR 81.301 to reflect a designation of attainment for these full and
partial counties. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Alabama
SIP, Alabama's plan for maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS in the Birmingham Area through 2024. The maintenance plan
includes contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and establishes NOX
and PM2.5 MVEBs for the year 2024 for the Birmingham Area.
Additionally, this action approves the emissions inventory for the
Birmingham Area pursuant to section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve three separate but related
actions, some of which involve multiple elements: (1) The redesignation
of the Birmingham Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) under CAA section 175A, Alabama's 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan, including the
associated MVEBs; and (3) under CAA section 172(c)(3), the emissions
inventory submitted with the maintenance plan for the Area. The 1997
Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Birmingham Area
includes the new 2024 NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs of
15,981.50 tpy and 442.07 tpy, respectively. Within 24 months from the
effective date of EPA's adequacy determination, the transportation
partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX
and PM2.5 MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The adequacy finding becomes effective upon the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. 40 CFR
93.118(f)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the CAA; and,
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 25, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: January 9, 2013.
 Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Birmingham Alabama Area'' at
the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable      State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective   EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision              nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance     Birmingham PM2.5             5/2/11   1/22/13 [Insert      ...................
 Plan for the Birmingham Area.     Nonattainment Area.                   citation of
                                                                         publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.301, the table entitled ``Alabama--PM2.5
(Annual NAAQS)'' is amended under ``Birmingham, AL'' by revising the
entry for ``Jefferson County, Shelby County, Walker County (part)'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  81.301  Alabama.

* * * * *

                      Alabama--PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\
         Designated area         ---------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham, AL:
    Jefferson County............  This action is      Attainment.
                                   effective 1/22/13.
    Shelby County...............  This action is      Attainment.
                                   effective 1/22/13.
    Walker County (part) The      This action is      Attainment.
     area described by U.S.        effective 1/22/13.
     Census 2000 block group
     identifiers 01-127-0214-5,
     01-127-0215-4, and 01-127-
     0216-2.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-00954 Filed 1-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P