[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59348-59354]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 357

[Docket No. RM12-18-000]

Revisions to Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to modify Page 700 of FERC Form No. 6 (Form 6) to facilitate the
calculation of a pipeline's actual return on equity. The Commission
proposes to expand the information provided regarding rate base (line
5), rate of return (line 6), return on rate base (line 7), and income
tax allowance (line 8).

DATES: Comments are due November 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Sarikas (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Holmes (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Andrew Knudsen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Background...............................................           2
II. Discussion..............................................           6
    A. Rate Base............................................           9
    B. Rate of Return.......................................          11
    C. Composite Tax Return.................................          13
III. Information Collection Statement.......................          19
IV. Environmental Analysis..................................          25
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act [Analysis or Certification]...          26
VI. Comment Procedures......................................          27
VII. Document Availability..................................          31

(Issued September 20, 2012)
    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes
to modify the reporting requirements on Page 700, Annual Cost of
Service Based Analysis Schedule, of FERC Form No. 6, Annual Report of
Oil Pipeline Companies (Form 6), to facilitate the calculation of a
pipeline's actual rate of return on equity based upon Page 700 data.
The modifications to Page 700 include requiring additional information
regarding rate base, rate of return, return on rate base, and income
taxes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Concurrent with the issuance of this NOPR, the Commission is
issuing a final rule in Docket No. RM11-21-000, Revision to Form No.
6.

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

I. Background

    2. The Commission is responsible for regulating the rates, terms
and conditions that oil pipelines charge for transportation under the
Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).\2\ The ICA prohibits pipelines from
charging rates that are ``unjust and unreasonable'' and permits
shippers and the Commission to challenge both pre-existing and newly
filed rates.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 1, et seq.
    \3\ 49 U.S.C. 13(1), 15(1), (7). Just and reasonable rate are
``rates yielding sufficient revenue to cover all proper costs,
including federal income taxes, plus a specified return on invested
capital.'' City of Charlottesville v. FERC, 774 F.2d 1205, 1207
(D.C. Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. To assist the Commission in the administration of its
jurisdictional responsibilities, the ICA authorizes the Commission to
prescribe annual or other periodic reports.\4\ Through Form 6, the
Commission collects annual financial information from crude and refined
product pipelines \5\ subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as
prescribed in section 357.2 of the Commission's regulations.\6\ Form 6
``is intended to be both a financial and ratemaking document.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 49 App. U.S.C. 1-85 (2000).
    \5\ Hereafter, the term ``oil pipeline'' shall include both
crude and refined product pipelines.
    \6\ 18 CFR 357.2 (2012).
    \7\ Revisions to and Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No. 6
and Related Uniform Systems of Accounts, Order No. 620, FERC Stats.
& Regs., Regulation Preambles July 1996-December 2000 ] 31,115, at
p. 31,954 (2000) (citing Cost of Service Requirements and Filing
Requirements for Oil Pipelines, Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs.,
Regulation Preambles Jan. 1991-June 1996 ] 31,006, at p. 31,169
(1995) and Form 6, p. I, Roman Numeral 1; on reh'g, Order No. 620-A,
94 FERC 61,130 (2001); order on reh'g, Order No. 620-A, 94 FERC ]
61,130 (2001)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Page 700 of Form 6 provides a simplified presentation of an oil
pipeline's jurisdictional cost-of-service. Page 700 serves as a
preliminary screening tool to evaluate pipeline rates.\8\ However,
``Page 700 information alone is not intended to show what a just and
reasonable rate should be.'' \9\ Currently, pipelines are required to
provide the following on Page 700: Operating and Maintenance Expenses
(line 1), Depreciation Expense (line 2), AFUDC Depreciation (line 3),
Amortization of Deferred Earnings (line 4), Rate Base (line 5), Rate of
Return (line 6), Return on Rate Base (line 7), Income Tax Allowance
(line 8), Total Cost of Service (line 9), Total Interstate Operating
Revenues (line 10), Throughput in Barrels (line 11), and Throughput in
Barrel-Miles (line 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All jurisdictional pipelines are required to file page 700,
including pipelines exempt from filing the full Form 6. 18 CFR
357.2(a)(2) and (a)(3) (2012).
    \9\ Order No. 571-A, 69 FERC ] 61,411, at p. 31,254 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. The Commission proposes to modify Page 700 to more easily enable
the calculation of a pipeline's actual rate of return on equity
consistent with the ratemaking principles embodied in Opinion 154-B, et
al. The actual rate of return on equity reflects the relationship
between a pipeline's revenues and its cost of service. As a result, the
actual rate of return on equity is particularly useful information when
using Page 700 to evaluate whether a pipeline's rates are just and
reasonable consistent with the Commission's mandate under the ICA.
    6. To provide the data necessary to calculate the actual return on
equity, Page 700 must be modified to include additional information
related to rate base, rate of return, return on rate base, and income
tax rates.

A. Rate Base

    7. The Commission seeks to enhance the information provided on Page
700 related to rate base, rate of return, and return on rate base. The
components of an oil pipeline's rate base are governed by the Trended
Original Cost Methodology adopted by the Commission in Opinion No. 154-
B. \10\ Under this methodology, a pipeline's Rate Base consists of (1)
The Original Cost Rate Base, (2) any unamortized amounts from the oil
pipeline's Starting Rate Base Write-Up (SRB),\11\ and (3) Accumulated
Net Deferred Earnings.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Williams Pipeline Co., Opinion No. 154-B, 31 FERC ]
61,377 (1985), order on reh'g, Opinion No. 154-C, 33 FERC ] 61,327
(1985). Instruction No. 2 of Page 700 of the FERC Form No. 6
requiring the values ``be computed consistent with the Commission's
Opinion No. 154-B et al. methodology * * *.''
    \11\ The Starting Rate Base Write-Up is a transitional rate base
element employed to bridge the transition from a valuation
ratemaking methodology to the Trended Original Cost methodology as
adopted in Opinion 154-B. The SRB was to be amortized over the
estimated life of the pipeline at the time the SRB was established.
    \12\ The trended original cost methodology divides the nominal
return on equity component of the cost of service into real return
and an inflationary return. The real return is collected in the
current year. The Net Deferred Earnings consists of the inflation
component, which is deferred to be recovered in annual installments
over the remaining life of the pipeline. See Opinion No. 154-B, 31
FERC ] 61,377 (1985), order on reh'g, Opinion No. 154-C, 33 FERC ]
61,327 (1985). See, e.g., BP West Coast Prods., LLC v. FERC, 374
F.3d 1263, 1282-83 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Consistent with Opinion No. 154-B, the Commission proposes to
enhance the Rate Base information provided on line 5 of Page 700 by
adding (1) Rate Base-Original Cost (proposed line 5a), (2) Rate Base-
Unamortized Starting Rate Base Write-Up (proposed line 5b), (3) Rate
Base-Accumulated Net Deferred Earnings (proposed line 5c). The sum of
proposed lines 5a, 5b and 5c comprise the pipeline's Trended Original
Cost Rate Base, which is currently reported on line 5 of Page 700 and
which the Commission proposes to move to line 5d entitled Total Rate
Base-Trended Original Cost-(5a + 5b + 5c).

B. Rate of Return

    9. The Commission proposes to require oil pipelines to report the
cost of equity and cost of debt components that constitute the overall
Weighted Cost of Capital currently reported as ``Rate of Return'' on
line 6, Page 700. Specifically, the Commission proposes to include
additional information related to debt and equity capital structure
ratios, i.e. (1) Rate of Return-Adjusted Capital Structure Ratio for
Long Term Debt (proposed line 6a), (2) Rate of Return-Adjusted Capital
Structure Ratio for Proprietary Capital (proposed line 6b).\13\ The
Commission further proposes to add information related to the cost of
debt and the cost of equity, specifically: (1) Rate of Return-Cost of
Long Term Debt Capital (proposed line 6c), (2) Rate of Return-Real Cost
of Proprietary Capital \14\ (proposed line 6d). This additional
information forms the basis for the Rate of Return-Weighted Average
Cost of Capital (the total of 6a * 6c + 6b * 6d), which is now reported
as ``Rate of Return'' on line 6 on Page 700 and which the Commission
proposes to move to line 6e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Adjusted Capital Structure Ratio adjusts upward the
level of equity in capital structure to account for the treatment of
Accumulated Deferred Earnings under the Opinion 154-B Methodology.
Under the 154-B Methodology, a pipeline's return on the Original
Cost and the SRB Write-Up is based on a weighted average of the cost
of debt and the return on equity. However, a pipeline's rate of
return on Accumulated Net Deferred Earnings is the equivalent to the
rate of return on equity (proposed line 6d) and does not include a
cost of debt component. The upward adjustment to equity ratio allows
the pipeline to apply its weighted average cost of capital
consisting of debt and equity to one rate base. ARCO Pipe Line Co.,
53 FERC ] 61,398 at 62,388-89.
    \14\ The real cost of capital excludes the inflationary
component of the nominal return that is placed in Net Deferred
Earnings pursuant to the trended original cost methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Return on Rate Base

    10. The Commission proposes to require oil pipelines to report
additional information related to the Return on Rate Base in line 7.
The Return on Rate Base currently reported on line 7 combines the
pipeline's return on equity and the portion of the pipeline's return
allocated to paying its cost of debt. The

Commission proposes to require the pipeline to include on Page 700 the
Return on Rate Base-Debt Component (proposed line 7a) \15\ and the
Return on Rate Base-Equity Component (proposed line 7b).\16\ The
Commission proposes to report on proposed on line 7c the Total Return
on Rate Base-(7a + 7b), which is the same information currently
reported on line 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Return on Rate Base-Debt Component will be the equivalent
of the weighted average cost of debt (product of proposed lines 6a
and 6c) multiplied by the Trended Original Cost Rate Base (proposed
line 5d).
    \16\ Return on Rate Base-Equity Component will be the equivalent
of the weighted average cost of equity (product of proposed lines 6b
and 6d) multiplied by the Trended Original Cost Rate Base (proposed
line 5d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Composite Tax Rate

    11. The Commission proposes to modify the Page 700 to include the
Composite Tax Rate used to determine the ``Income Tax Allowance.'' \17\
Line 8 of the Page 700 currently requires each pipeline to report the
total dollar amount attributable to the ``Income Tax Allowance'' in its
cost-of-service. The Commission proposes to add a new line 8a which
will require a pipeline to report its ``Composite Tax Rate
Percentage.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Commission's income tax policy permits ``an income tax
allowance for all entities or individuals owning public utility
assets, provided that entity or individual has an actual or
potential income tax liability to be paid on that income from those
assets.'' Inquiry Regarding Income Tax Allowances, 111 FERC ] 61,139
(2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Commission defines the Composite Tax Rate Percentage as the
sum, adjusted consistent with Commission policy, of (a) the applicable
state income tax rate and (b) a federal income tax rate. As filed on
Page 700, the Composite Tax Rate Percentage should reflect the income
tax rate used pursuant to Commission's policies to determine the Income
Tax Allowance reported on line 8.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For instance, the business structure for a large number of
oil pipelines is a Master Limited Partnership (MLP). The income tax
allowance for an MLP pipeline is based upon the tax liability of the
owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The Composite Tax Rate Percentage will create a better
understanding of the differential between a pipeline's Total Interstate
Operating Revenues (line 10) and the pipeline's Total Cost of Service
(line 9). Specifically, the Composite Tax Rate Percentage may be used
to determine the portion of this differential that is attributable to
income taxes under Commission policy, and the portion that may be
treated as part of a pipeline's actual return on equity.

E. Calculation of Actual Rate of Return on Equity

    14. These modifications to Page 700 will provide information that
may be used to calculate a pipeline's actual rate of return on equity.
The actual rate of return on equity is determined by dividing (a) the
actual return on equity by (b) the equity portion of Trended Original
Cost Rate Base reported on line 5d. The actual return on equity is the
sum of three components that can be derived using the proposed
modifications to Page 700: (a) The return on equity embedded in a
pipeline's Page 700 Total Cost of Service (proposed line 7b); (b) the
difference, adjusted for taxes, between a pipeline's Total Interstate
Operating Revenues (proposed Line 10) and a pipeline's Total Cost of
Service (proposed Line 9); \19\ and (c) the current year's contribution
to Net Deferred Earnings, which is calculated by multiplying the equity
portion of the Trended Original Cost Rate Base (line 5d) by the current
year's Department of Labor's consumer price index for all urban areas
(CPI-U).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The difference between the pipeline's Total Interstate
Operating Revenues (Line 10) and Total Cost of Service (proposed
Line 9) provides the pipeline's earnings above its Total Cost of
Service. As described above, the Composite Tax Rate Percentage may
be used to determine the portion of this differential that is
attributable to income taxes under Commission policy and the portion
that may be treated as part of a pipeline's actual return on equity.
    \20\ As noted in footnote 16, the trended original cost
methodology divides the nominal return on equity component of the
cost of service into real return and an inflationary return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Once the actual return on equity has been derived, it may be
divided by the equity portion of Trended Original Cost Rate Base. The
equity portion of the Trended Original Cost Rate base consists of the
Trended Original Cost Rate Base (proposed line 5d) multiplied by the
equity component of capital structure (proposed line 6b).
    16. These proposed modifications to Page 700 will increase the
usefulness of Page 700. Prior to this proposal, any attempt to estimate
an oil pipeline's actual return on equity required assumptions
regarding several cost of service components, including capital
structure (proposed lines 6a and 6b), the composite income tax rate
(proposed line 8a), and the return on equity embedded in a pipeline's
Page 700 cost of service (proposed line 7b). The Commission believes
this additional information will make Page 700 a more useful tool for
evaluating a pipeline's rates; however, it welcomes comments as to
whether the proposed changes herein are sufficient for the goals we
have described above.

F. Conclusion

    17. As discussed herein, the proposed modifications will facilitate
the calculation of the actual rate of return on equity based upon Page
700 data. The actual rate of return on equity is particularly useful
information when using Page 700 to evaluate a pipeline's rates. The
additional information proposed to be reported will impose almost no
additional burden on oil pipelines because pipelines already must
develop cost of service supporting calculations to determine the Income
Tax Allowance, Rate Base, Rate of Return, and Return on Rate Base
reported on Page 700. Given these existing requirements, the Commission
does not anticipate that these proposed additions to Page 700 of Form 6
will impose a significant burden on oil pipelines.

G. Effective Date

    18. The Commission proposes that the changes to Form 6 are to be
effective for reporting in the 2013 Form 6. The 2013 Form 6 must be
filed on or before April 18, 2014.\21\ The new schedule appearing on
Page 700 therefore would not be required for Form 6 filings until April
18, 2014, for the reporting year ending December 31, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 18 CFR 357.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    19. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rules.\22\ Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \23\ requires each federal
agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection
of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule
of general applicability.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 5 CFR 1320.
    \23\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \24\ OMB's regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4)(i) require that
``Any recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirement contained
in a rule of general applicability is deemed to involve ten or more
persons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to
OMB for its review and approval under section

3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are solicited on the Commission's need for
this information, whether the information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the
use of automated information techniques.
    21. The Commission's estimate of the additional Public Reporting
Burden and cost related to the proposed rule in Docket RM12-18-000
follow.
    22. For the recurring effort involved in filing the data on
proposed lines 5a-5c, 6a-6e, 7a-7c, and 8a of Page 700 for 2013 and
future years, we estimate that the change in burden is 0.5 hours per
year per respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Based on an estimated average cost per employee for 2012
(including salary plus benefits) of $143,540, the estimated average
hourly cost per employee is $69.01. The average work year is 2,080
hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimated                         Estimated
                                                                      Annual number      additional    Total estimated  additional cost  Total estimated
                      RM12-18-000, FERC Form 6                          of fliers        burden per       additional     per filer  ($)  additional cost
                                                                                filer (Hr)      burden  (Hr)         \25\              ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing new proposed lines on page 700..............................             166              0.5               88           $34.51        $3,036.88
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. Information Collection Cost and Burden: The Commission seeks
comments on the costs and burden to comply with these requirements.
    Title: FERC Form 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies.
    Action: Proposed Revisions to the FERC Form 6.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0022.
    Respondents: Oil pipelines.
    Frequency of Responses: Annual.
    Necessity of the Information: This action ensures the availability
of data consistent with the Commission's obligation to regulate
interstate oil and petroleum product pipeline rates and the intent of
Page 700, to enable the Commission and shippers to monitor and analyze
interstate pipeline costs.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient and sufficient
information collection, communication, and management with regard to
the oil pipeline sector of the energy industry. The Commission has, by
means of internal review, assured itself that there is specific,
objective support for the burden estimates associated with the
information collection requirements.
    24. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. Comments on the requirements of this
rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0022,
FERC-6 and the docket number of this proposed rulemaking in your
submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    25. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\26\ The
actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\27\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \27\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    26. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires
agencies to prepare certain statements, descriptions, and analyses of
proposed rules that will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities.\28\ Agencies are not
required to make such an analysis if a rule would not have such an
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The Commission does not believe that this proposed rule will
have an adverse impact on small entities, nor will it impose upon them
any significant costs of compliance. The Commission identified 29 small
entities as respondents to the requirements in the proposed rule.\29\
As explained above, the Commission estimates that the change to Page
700 will increase the paperwork burden of preparing Page 700 by
approximately $34.51 per respondent. The Commission does not estimate
that there are any other regulatory burdens associated with this
proposed rule. Therefore the Commission certifies that the proposed
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15
U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Size Standards component of the North
American Industry Classification System defines a small oil pipeline
company as one with less than 1,500 employees. See 13 CFR parts 121,
201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Comment Procedures

    28. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including
any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish
to discuss. Comments are due 60 days from publication in the Federal
Register. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM12-18-000, and must
include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address in their comments.
    29. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.

    30. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    31. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    32. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426.
    33. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
    34. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix A--Summary of Proposed Changes to FERC Form 6, Page 700

    Line 5a is added to read as follows:

Rate Base-Original Cost

    Line 5b is added to read as follows:

Rate Base-Unamortized Starting Rate Base Write-Up

    Line 5c is added to read as follows:

Rate Base-Accumulated Net Deferred Earnings

    Line 5d is added to read as follows:

Total Rate Base-Trended Original Cost-(5a + 5b + 5c)

    Line 6a is added to read as follows:

Rate of Return-Adjusted Capital Structure Ratio for Long Term Debt

    Line 6b is added to read as follows:

Rate of Return-Adjusted Capital Structure Ratio for Proprietary
Capital

    Line 6c is added to read as follows:

Rate of Return-Cost of Long Term Debt Capital

    Line 6d is added to read as follows:

Rate of Return-Real Cost of Proprietary Capital

    Line 6e is added to read as follows:

Rate of Return-Weighted Average Cost of Capital-(6a x 6c + 6b x 6d)

    Line 7a is added to read as follows:

Return on Rate Base-Debt Component

    Line 7b is added to read as follows:

Return on Rate Base-Equity Component

    Line 7c is added to read as follows:

Total Return on Rate Base-(7a + 7b)

    Line 8a is added to read as follows:

Composite Tax Rate % (37.50%-37.50)

    Note:  Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE12.003

[FR Doc. 2012-23807 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register: June 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 121)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36048-36049]
[DOCID:fr23jn06-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8186-4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Brio Refining, Inc. Superfund
Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
6 is issuing a notice of intent to delete the Brio Refining, Inc.
Superfund Site (Site), located in Friendswood, Texas, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300,
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Texas, through the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' Section of today's Federal Register, we are
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Brio Refining, Inc.
Superfund Site without prior notice of intent to delete because we view
this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment.
We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the
direct final deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this
notice of intent to delete or the direct final notice of deletion, we
will not take further action on this notice of intent to delete. If we
receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of
deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address
all public comments in a subsequent final deletion notice based on this
notice of intent to delete. We will not institute a second comment
period on this notice of intent to delete. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the
direct final notice of deletion which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site must be received by July 24, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0008, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    E-mail: mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Donn Walters, Community Outreach Team, U.S. EPA Region 6
(6SF-PO), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-
800-533-3508.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
 Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the information

repositories.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John C. Meyer, Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-LP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-533-3508 (meyer.john@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct
Final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.
    Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to
provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following
addresses: U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through
Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; San Jacinto College,
South Campus Library, 13735 Beamer Road, Houston, Texas 77089, (281)
992-3416, Monday through Thursday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 8 a.m. to 3
p.m.; Saturday 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.; Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), Central File Room Customer Service Center, Building E,
12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: May 25, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 06-5569 Filed 6-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58489-58490]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3393]

Determination That ORTHO EVRA (Norelgestromin/Ethinyl Estradiol)
Transdermal System, 0.15 Milligrams/24 Hours Norelgestromin and 0.035
Milligrams/24 Hours Ethinyl Estradiol, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for
Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has
determined that ORTHO EVRA (norelgestromin/ethinyl estradiol)
Transdermal System, 0.15 milligrams (mg)/24 hours (hr) norelgestromin
and 0.035 mg/24hr ethinyl estradiol was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination means that FDA
will not begin procedures to withdraw approval of abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) that refer to this drug product, and it will allow
FDA to continue to approve ANDAs that refer to the product as long as
they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ayako Sato, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6206, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain

exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval
contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage
form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a version of the drug that was
previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the
extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a
new drug application (NDA).
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the ``Orange
Book''. Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162).
    Under Sec.  314.161(a) (21 CFR 314.161(a)), the Agency must
determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of
safety or effectiveness: (1) Before an ANDA that refers to that listed
drug may be approved, (2) whenever a listed drug is voluntarily
withdrawn from sale and ANDAs that refer to the listed drug have been
approved, and (3) when a person petitions for such a determination
under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and 10.30. Section 314.161(d) provides that if
FDA determines that a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for safety or
effectiveness reasons, the Agency will initiate proceedings that could
result in the withdrawal of approval of the ANDAs that refer to the
listed drug.
    FDA has become aware that the drug product listed in the table in
this document is no longer being marketed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Application No.                Drug                Applicant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 21-180..................  ORTHO EVRA            Janssen
                               (norelgestromin/      Pharmaceutical
                               ethinyl estradiol)    Inc., 920 U.S.
                               Transdermal System;   Highway 202,
                               0.15 mg/24hr          Raritan, NJ 08869-
                               norelgestromin and    0602.
                               0.035 mg/24hr
                               ethinyl estradiol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has reviewed its records and, under Sec.  314.161, has
determined that the drug product listed in this document was not
withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list the drug product listed
in this document in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of
the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' identifies,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.
    Approved ANDAs that refer to the NDA listed in this document are
unaffected by the discontinued marketing of the product subject to this
NDA. Additional ANDAs that refer to this product may also be approved
by the Agency if they comply with relevant legal and regulatory
requirements. If FDA determines that labeling for norelgestromin/
ethinyl estradiol transdermal system should be revised to meet current
standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such
labeling.

    Dated: September 23, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-24622 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58496-58498]
[DOCID:fr06oc05-172]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52533; File No. SR-Amex-2005-085]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Implementation of a Cancellation Fee for Equities and
ETFs

September 29, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 20, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') 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 Amex. On September 23,
2005, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
September 26, 2005, Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ Amex has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by Amex under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\6\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange: (1) Clarified that
cancellations resulting from ``Immediate or Cancel'' and ``Fill or
Kill'' orders will not be counted when determining the amount of the
cancellation fee to be charged to an executing clearing member and
updated the corresponding proposed rule text; and (2) stated that
Amex plans to begin billing the cancellation fee in November 2005
based on order cancellations and executions occurring in October
2005.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange made technical corrections
to the proposed rule text. The effective date of the original
proposed rule change is September 20, 2005, the effective date of
Amendment No. 1 is September 23, 2005, and the effective date of
Amendment No. 2 is September 26, 2005. For purposes of calculating
the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate
the proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the
Commission considers the period to commence on September 23, 2005,
the date on which Amex filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C.
78s(b)(3)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex proposes to establish a fee based on the number of order
cancellations in equities, Exchange Traded Fund Shares and Trust Issued
Receipts (hereinafter referred to as ``equities and ETFs'') routed
through Amex systems. Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as
amended. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
* * * * *
Amex Equity Fee Schedule
I. Transaction Charges

    No change.

II. Equities Order Cancellation Fee

    The executing clearing member is charged $0.25 for every equities
and ETF order sent for a mnemonic and cancelled through Amex systems in
a given month when the total number of equities and ETF orders executed
for that mnemonic is less than or equal to 10% of equities and ETF
orders cancelled through Amex systems for that mnemonic in that same
month. The fee does not apply to mnemonics for which fewer than 100,000
orders were cancelled through Amex systems and does not apply to the
first 100,000 cancellations submitted for a mnemonic. In addition,
cancellations resulting from ``Immediate or Cancel'' or ``Fill or
Kill'' orders will not be counted towards the number of cancellations
used to determine whether the fee should be applied to a mnemonic and
will not be counted when determining the amount of the cancellation fee
charged to an executing clearing member. Executions of ``Immediate or
Cancel'' and ``Fill or Kill'' orders will however be counted towards
the number of executions.

[II.] III. Regulatory Fee

    No change.
* * * * *

Amex Exchange Traded Funds and Trust Issued Receipts Fee Schedule

    Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) include Portfolio Depositary Receipts,
Index Fund Shares and Trust Issued Receipts. The fee imposed for
executing trades in these securities will vary depending on for whom
the trade is executed as follows:
I. Transaction Charges for ETFs Without Unreimbursed Fees to a Third
Party
    No change.

II. Transaction Charges for ETFs for which the Exchange Pays
Unreimbursed Fees to a Third Party
    No change.
III. Transaction Charges for SPDR O-Strip
    No change.
IV. Transaction Charges for iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index Fund
    No change.

Notes:

    No change.

V. ETF Order Cancellation Fee

    The executing clearing member is charged $0.25 for every equities
and ETF order sent for a mnemonic and cancelled through Amex systems in
a given month when the total number of equities and ETF orders executed
for that mnemonic is less than or equal to 10% of equities and ETF
orders cancelled through Amex systems for that mnemonic in that same
month. The fee does not apply to mnemonics for which fewer than 100,000
orders were cancelled through Amex systems and does not apply to the
first 100,000 cancellations submitted for a mnemonic. In addition,
cancellations resulting from ``Immediate or Cancel'' or ``Fill or
Kill'' orders will not be counted towards the number of cancellations
used to determine whether the fee should be applied to a mnemonic and
will not be counted when determining the amount of the cancellation fee
charged to an executing clearing member. Executions of ``Immediate or
Cancel'' and ``Fill or Kill'' orders will however be counted towards
the number of executions.

[II.] VI. Regulatory Fee

    No charge.
Note:
    1. This exemption does not apply to System Orders of a member or
member organization trading as agent for the account of a non-member
competing market maker, who will be charged $.000075 x Total Value
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex 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. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish a fee on the cancellation of
orders in equities and ETFs. The Amex believes that this fee is
necessary given the often disproportionate number of order
cancellations received relative to order executions and the increased
costs associated with the practice of immediately following an order
routed through exchange systems with a cancel request for that order.
These order cancellations utilize system capacity and may require
manual processing by specialist unit personnel, which may unnecessarily
distract specialist staff from other responsibilities. Cancellations
often come in large numbers creating backlogs in Amex systems,
increasing Exchange costs, adversely impacting public customers, their
clearing firms and specialists and resulting in less than timely
executions of customer orders. The large volume of order cancellations
requires an increase in Exchange spending on systems and related
hardware used to process increased message traffic.
    The cancellation fee for equities and ETFs is similar in structure
to the options order cancellation fee adopted by the Exchange in
2001.\7\ The fee will apply to the executing clearing member when the
number of cancellations of equity and ETF orders exceeds certain
parameters. The cancellation fee for equities and ETFs will be
calculated and applied on a ``mnemonic-by-mnemonic'' basis for each
clearing member. Mnemonics are reference numbers or codes used by
executing clearing members to designate: (1) Either the branch, trading
desk or account from which orders, cancellations or other messages are
sent to Amex; or (2) the types of products for which orders,
cancellations or other types of messages are sent to Amex. For example,
some clearing firms use one mnemonic to send equity orders and
cancellations and another mnemonic to send ETF orders and
cancellations. Each executing clearing member has at least one
mnemonic, while many executing clearing members have two or more.
Calculating and applying the cancellation fee for equities and ETFs on
a mnemonic-by-mnemonic basis provides a more precise way of billing
executing clearing members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 45110 (November 27,
2001), 66 FR 63080 (December 4, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, an executing clearing member will be charged $0.25
for every equities and ETF order sent for a mnemonic and cancelled
through Amex systems in a given month when the total number of equities
and ETF orders executed for that mnemonic is less than or equal to 10%
of the equities and ETF orders cancelled through Amex systems for that
mnemonic in that same month. The fee does not apply to mnemonics for
which fewer than 100,000 orders were cancelled through Amex systems and
does not apply to the first 100,000 cancellations submitted for a
mnemonic. For example, in August 2005, an executing clearing member
submitted, for one mnemonic, 313,511 orders in Amex equities. For that
same mnemonic, the executing clearing member cancelled 286,556 of those
orders and executed 26,955. Pursuant to the proposed cancellation fee,
the executing clearing member would have been subject to a fee of
$46,639 (286,556x100,000 x $0.25) for that mnemonic. Cancellations
resulting from ``Immediate or Cancel'' or ``Fill or Kill'' orders \8\
will not be counted towards the number of cancellations, since those
order types, which combine an order with its cancellation in one
message, do not add to the message traffic sent through Exchange
systems. Cancellations resulting from ``Immediate or Cancel'' and
``Fill or Kill'' orders will not be counted when determining the amount
of the cancellation fee charged to an executing clearing member.
Executions of ``Immediate or Cancel'' and ``Fill or Kill'' orders will,
however, be counted towards the number of executions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``Fill or Kill'' order is a market or limited price order
which is to be executed in its entirety as soon as it is represented
in the trading crowd, and such order, if not so executed, is to be
treated as cancelled. An ``Immediate or Cancel'' order is a market
or limited price order which is to be executed in whole or in part
as soon as such order is represented in the trading crowd, and the
portion not so executed, is to be treated as cancelled. See Amex
Rules 131(i) and (k).
    \9\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amex plans to begin billing the cancellation fee in November 2005
based on order cancellations and executions occurring in October
2005.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Amex believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)

of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
In particular, Amex believes that the proposed cancellation fee will
allow the Exchange to more equitably recover systems capacity costs
from its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change, as amended,
will impose any burden on competition.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \14\ since it establishes or changes a due, fee or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2005-085 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-085. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2005-085 and should be submitted on or before
October 27, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5469 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62451-62455]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23783]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605; FRL-9900-53-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR70

Air Quality: Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic
Compounds--Exclusion of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action to revise the regulatory
definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for purposes of
preparing state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). This final action adds 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene
(also known as HFO-1234yf) to the list of compounds excluded from the
regulatory definition of VOCs on the basis that this compound makes a
negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. As a result,
if you are subject to certain federal regulations limiting emissions of
VOCs, your emissions of HFO-1234yf may not be regulated for some
purposes. This action may also affect whether HFO-1234yf is considered
a VOC for state regulatory purposes, depending on whether the state
relies on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605. 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 (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will
be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC.
The 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
Air and Radiation Docket Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sanders, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-01,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this final rule include, but are
not necessarily limited to, states (typically state air pollution
control agencies) that control VOCs; manufacturers, importers or
processors of this compound; and industries involved in the manufacture
or servicing of automobiles or automotive air conditioning systems.
This action has no substantial direct effects on industry because it
does not impose any new mandates on these entities, but, to the
contrary, removes HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs.
The use of this compound is subject to restrictions under the CAA and
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, the use of this
compound as an aerosol propellant, blowing agent, or refrigerant, or
any other use in which it would substitute for chlorofluorocarbons,
hydrochlorofluorocarbons or their substitutes, is prohibited unless
such use has been approved under the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program (CAA Sec.  612; 40 CFR 82 subpart G). The SNAP
program has issued a final approval for HFO-1234yf only as a substitute
for use in the motor vehicle air conditioning end-use as a replacement
for ozone depleting substances (76 FR 17488, March 29, 2011; revised at
77 FR 17344, March 26, 2012). Furthermore, any significant new use of
HFO-1234yf is subject to a reporting requirement according to a
significant new use rule (SNUR) established under TSCA (75 FR 65987,
October 27, 2010; proposed for amendment at 78 FR 32617, May 31, 2013).

B. How is this preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How is this preamble organized?
II. Background
    A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy
    B. Petition To List HFO-1234yf as an Exempt Compound
    C. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone
    D. Health and Environmental Risks
III. Proposed Action and Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
    L. Judicial Review

II. Background

A. The EPA's VOC Exemption Policy

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone,
the EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be
released into the atmosphere. VOCs are those organic compounds of
carbon that form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions.
Different VOCs have different levels of reactivity. That is, they do
not react to form ozone at the same speed or do not form ozone to the
same extent. Some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone; therefore,
changes in their emissions have less and, in some cases, very limited
effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been the
EPA's policy that organic compounds with a negligible level of
reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOCs so
as to focus VOC control efforts on compounds that do significantly
increase ozone concentrations. The EPA also believes that exempting
such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly
reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are
regulated as VOCs. The EPA lists compounds that it has determined to be
negligibly reactive in its regulations as being excluded from the
regulatory definition of VOCs (40 CFR 51.100(s)).
    Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that the EPA has the authority
to define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be
treated as VOCs for regulatory purposes. The policy of excluding
negligibly reactive compounds from the regulatory definition of VOCs
was first set forth in the ``Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds'' (42 FR 35314, July 8, 1977) and was supplemented
most recently with the ``Interim Guidance on Control of Volatile
Organic Compounds in Ozone State Implementation Plans'' (Interim
Guidance) (70 FR 54046, September 13, 2005). The EPA uses the
reactivity of ethane as the threshold for determining whether a
compound has negligible reactivity. Compounds that are less reactive
than, or equally reactive to, ethane under certain assumed conditions
may be deemed negligibly reactive and therefore suitable for exemption
from the regulatory definition of VOCs. Compounds that are more
reactive than ethane continue to be considered VOCs for regulatory
purposes and therefore are subject to control requirements. The
selection of ethane as the threshold compound was based on a series of
smog chamber experiments that underlay the 1977 policy.
    The EPA has used three different metrics to compare the reactivity
of a specific compound to that of ethane: (i) The reaction rate
constant (known as kOH) with the hydroxyl radical (OH); (ii)
the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) on a reactivity per unit mass
basis; and (iii) the MIR expressed on a reactivity per mole basis. If a
compound is equally or less reactive than ethane on

any one of these three metrics, then under the Interim Guidance it is
considered by the EPA to be negligibly reactive in forming ozone. A
full description of each metric and how it is derived can be found in
the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059, October 17, 2011) and
is not repeated here.

B. Petition To List HFO-1234yf as an Exempt Compound

    Honeywell Inc. submitted a petition to the EPA on June 29, 2009,
requesting that HFO-1234yf (CAS 754-12-1) be exempted from VOC control
based on its low reactivity relative to ethane. The petitioner
indicated that HFO-1234yf may be used as a refrigerant for
refrigeration and air-conditioning. Honeywell also indicated that it
expects HFO-1234yf to be widely used as a replacement for HFC-134a in
motor vehicle air-conditioners (MVAC), and that it has been
specifically developed for this purpose. Honeywell asserts that as a
replacement for use in motor vehicle air conditioners, there will be an
environmental advantage in that the global warming potential (GWP) of
HFO-1234yf is 4, which is substantially lower than the GWP for HFC-134a
(100-year GWP = 1430), which HFO-1234yf is designed to replace.

C. Contribution to Tropospheric Ozone

    Detailed information on the ozone reactivity of HFO-1234yf was
presented in the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059, October
17, 2011) and is summarized here.
    HFO-1234yf has a higher kOH value than ethane, meaning
that it initially reacts more quickly in the atmosphere than ethane. A
molecule of HFO-1234yf is also more reactive than a molecule of ethane.
However, a gram of HFO-1234yf has the same reactivity as a gram of
ethane.
    Under the Interim Guidance, if a compound is equally or less
reactive than ethane on any one or more of the three reactivity
metrics, it is considered by the EPA to be negligibly reactive in
forming ozone. The data submitted by Honeywell support the conclusion
that the reactivity of HFO-1234yf is equal to or lower than that of
ethane on a mass MIR basis. Thus, HFO-1234yf is eligible for exemption
from the regulatory definition of VOCs under the terms of the Interim
Guidance.
    The EPA has also considered the results of a recent peer-reviewed
study of the increase in ozone that may occur as a result of the
substitution of HFO-1234yf for HFC-134a.\1\ The additional information
from this study shows that, under the assumptions used in the air
quality modeling, the use of HFO-1234yf would produce slightly more
ozone than continued use of HFC-134a, but the increase is unlikely to
have a significant impact on local air quality. The EPA believes the
very small increase (0.01 percent) in ozone concentrations that may
result from encouraging the use of HFO-1234yf via an exemption from the
regulatory definition of VOC does not constitute a sufficient reason to
depart from the Interim Guidance's reliance on MIR comparisons to
ethane as the basis for approving VOC exemption requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ D. Luecken, R. Waterland, S. Papasavva, K. Taddonio, W.
Hutzell, J. Rugh, and S. Andersen. Ozone and TFA Impacts in North
America from Degradation of 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf),
A Potential Greenhouse Gas Replacement. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44,
pp. 343-349. See 76 FR 64059 (October 17, 2011). See 76 FR 64059
(October 17, 2011) at 64062 for additional description of this study
and the EPA's assessment of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the EPA believes that this chemical qualifies as
negligibly reactive with respect to its contribution to tropospheric
ozone formation.

D. Health and Environmental Risks

    The preamble to the proposal notice for this action (76 FR 64059,
October 17, 2011) provided background information on the Premanufacture
Notice (PMN) and SNAP reviews of HFO-1234yf. This information is
summarized and updated here.
    After reviewing available information and public comments regarding
its safety, health and environmental risks and benefits under the SNAP
program, the EPA issued a final listing on March 29, 2011, for HFO-
1234yf as an acceptable substitute for use of ozone depleting
substances in MVAC, subject to specific use conditions, in place of
CFC-12 and HFC-134a (76 FR 174888).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ HFC-134a, which is not an ozone depleting substance, has
already largely replaced CFC-12 in motor vehicle air conditioners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNAP review, the EPA found that the use of HFO-1234yf in new
passenger vehicle and light-duty truck MVAC systems, subject to the use
conditions, does not present a significantly greater risk to human
health and the environment compared to the currently approved MVAC
alternatives. The 2011 SNAP rule for HFO-1234yf was amended on March
26, 2012, to incorporate by reference a revised standard for connecting
fittings from SAE International (77 FR 17344).
    Under the TSCA, the EPA in 2010 completed a pre-manufacture review
for HFO-1234yf and issued a SNUR (75 FR 65987, October 27, 2010). The
2010 SNUR for HFO-1234yf requires significant new use notification to
the EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing or processing for uses
beyond air conditioning in new passenger cars and vehicles or
commercial servicing of new passenger cars and vehicles originally
designed for HFO-1234yf. In particular, under the 2010 rule,
notification is required before HFO-1234yf can be sold directly to
consumers for the purpose of servicing the MVAC system of their own
vehicles. During the notification period, the EPA can take further
action to prevent any unreasonable risk. This precautionary step was
taken because of certain animal exposure studies indicating toxicity,
and the possibility that consumers might be exposed to levels of HFO-
1234yf that would cause an unreasonable health risk. However, based on
information submitted subsequent to the 2010 rule that in the EPA's
view resolves the issue pertaining to the potential risks from consumer
exposure that was present in 2010, the EPA has proposed to amend the
SNUR for HFO-1234yf such that notification would not be required prior
to sale of HFO-1234yf-containing consumer products used to recharge the
MVAC systems in passenger cars and vehicles originally designed for
HFO-1234yf (78 FR 32617, May 31, 2013).

III. Proposed Action and Response to Comments

    Based on the mass MIR value for HFO-1234yf being equal to or less
than that of ethane, the EPA proposed to find that HFO-1234yf is
``negligibly reactive'' and to exempt HFO-1234yf from the regulatory
definition of VOCs at 40 CFR 51.100(s) (76 FR 64059, October 17,
2011).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this proposal, we also proposed to exempt trans-1,3,3,3-
tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234ze) from the definition of
VOC. We have taken final action separately for HFO-1234ze on that
proposal. 77 FR 37610, June 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There were two comments regarding HFO-1234yf submitted to the
docket during the public comment period. One comment was from the
petitioner, Honeywell. Another comment came from the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers. Both comments were in favor of exempting HFO-
1234yf. The EPA acknowledges the commenters' support for the proposed
action.

IV. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the petition for
exemption of HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs.
    If an entity uses or produces HFO-1234yf and is subject to the EPA

regulations limiting the use of VOC in a product other than an aerosol
coating, limiting the VOC emissions from a facility, or otherwise
controlling the use of VOC for purposes related to attaining the ozone
NAAQS, then the compound will not be counted as a VOC in determining
whether these regulatory obligations have been met. Emissions of this
compound will not be considered in determining whether a proposed new
or modified source triggers the applicability of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, in areas where the PSD
program is implemented by the EPA or a delegated state, local or tribal
agency. This action may also affect whether HFO-1234yf is considered a
VOC for state regulatory purposes to reduce ozone formation, depending
on whether a state relies on the EPA's regulatory definition of VOCs.
States are not obligated to exclude from control as VOCs those
compounds that the EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However,
states may not take credit for controlling these compounds in their
ozone control strategies.
    This action is consistent with the Interim Guidance in that one of
the three reactivity metric values for HFO-1234yf compares favorably to
the corresponding value for ethane. This action is also supported by
the EPA's finding during PMN review that HFO-1234yf did not present an
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment from the expected
uses of the substance, our finding in the SNAP program review of this
chemical that use of this chemical in currently-allowed applications
poses lower or comparable overall risk to human health and the
environment than other acceptable options for the same uses and our
confidence that the SNAP program, and the requirements under TSCA will
prevent the use of this chemical in any additional applications where
such use would pose a significant risk to human health or the
environment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It does not contain any
recordkeeping or reporting requirement.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration (SBA) regulation (see 13 CFR
121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule
removes HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby
relieves users from requirements to control emissions of the compound.
We have, therefore, concluded that today's final rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
removes HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby
relieves users of the compound from requirements to control emissions
of the compound.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule removes HFO-1234yf
from the regulatory definition of VOCs and thereby relieves users from
requirements to control emissions of the compound. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It would 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.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866. While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order, the
EPA has reason to believe that ozone has a disproportionate effect on
active children who play outdoors (62 FR 38856; 38859, July 18, 1997).
The

EPA has not identified any specific studies on whether or to what
extent HFO-1234yf may affect children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994)
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it will not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment.

K. 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. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on November 21, 2013.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date the
final action is published in the Federal Register.
    Filing a petition for review by the Administrator of this final
action 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 must be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such action. Thus, any petitions for review of this action related
to the exemption of HFO-1234yf from the regulatory definition of VOCs
must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published in the
Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 19, 2013.
Gina McCarthy,
EPA Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51, Subpart F, continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479,
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

Sec.  51.100  [Amended]

0
2. Section 51.100 is amended at the end of paragraph (s)(1)
introductory text by removing the words ``and perfluorocarbon compounds
which fall into these classes:'' and adding in their place the words
``2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; and perfluorocarbon compounds which fall
into these classes:''.

[FR Doc. 2013-23783 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P