[Federal Register: November 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 221)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59502-59503]
[DOCID:fr18no09-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10, 11, 12, and 15

[Docket No. USCG-2004-17914]
RIN 1625-AA16

Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a series of public meetings to
receive comments on a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Implementation of the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention
on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978'' that published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009. As
stated in that document, the proposed amendments seek to more fully
incorporate the requirements of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,
1978, as amended (STCW Convention), as well as the Seafarer's Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) in the requirements for
the credentialing of United States merchant mariners.

DATES: Public meetings will be held on the following dates:
     Tuesday, December 1, 2009, in Miami, FL from 9 a.m. until
noon;
     Wednesday, December 2, 2009, in NY from 9 a.m. until noon;
     Wednesday, December 9, 2009, in New Orleans, LA from 9
a.m. until noon;
     Friday, December 11, 2009, in Seattle, WA from 9 a.m.
until noon;
     Wednesday, January 20, 2010, in Washington, DC from 10
a.m. until 1 p.m.

Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast
Guard personnel specified at those meetings for inclusion in the
official docket for this rulemaking. The comment period for the NPRM
closes on February 16, 2010. All comments and related material
submitted after the meeting must either be submitted to our online
docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before February 16, 2010 or
reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be held at the following locations:
     Tuesday, December 1, 2009, at the Marriott Miami Airport
Hotel, 1201 NW LeJeune Road, Miami, FL 33126 from 9 a.m. until noon;
     Wednesday, December 2, 2009, at the Marriott New York
LaGuardia Airport Hotel, 102-05 Ditmars Blvd, East Elmhurst, NY 11369
from 9 a.m. until noon;
     Wednesday, December 9, 2009, at the Renaissance Arts
Hotel, 700 Tchoupitoulas Street, New Orleans, LA 70130 from 9 a.m.
until noon;
     Friday, December 11, 2009, at the Marriott Seattle Airport
Hotel, 3201 South 176th Street, Seattle, WA 98188 from 9 a.m. until
noon;
     Wednesday, January 20, 2010, at United States Coast Guard
Headquarters Building, Room 2415, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20593 from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. Note: A government-issued photo
identification (for example, a driver's license) will be required for
entrance to the building.

Live Webcasts (audio and video) of the four public meetings to be held
in

Miami, FL, New York, NY, New Orleans, LA, and Seattle, WA, will also be
broadcast online. The Web site for viewing those Webcasts can be found
at http://www.stcwregs.us. The Webcasts will enable those using this
feature only to view the proceedings and not to make remarks to those
participating in the meetings in person. However, a verbatim record of
these public meetings will be provided in the docket.
    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-
2004-17914 before or after the meetings using any one of the following
methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
Our online docket for this rulemaking is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2004-17914.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rulemaking, call or e-mail Mr. Mark Gould, Maritime Personnel
Qualifications Division, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in
the Federal Register on November 17, 2009, entitled ``Implementation of
the 1995 Amendments to the International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978.'' In the
NPRM, we stated our intention to hold public meetings and to publish a
notice announcing the location and date. This document is the notice of
those meetings.
    In the NPRM, we seek to more fully incorporate the requirements of
the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended (STCW Convention), as
well as the Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code
(STCW Code) in the requirements for the credentialing of United States
merchant mariners.
    You may view the NPRM in our online docket, in addition to
supporting documents prepared by the Coast Guard, and comments
submitted thus far by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there,
click on the ``Read Comments'' box. In the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' box,
insert ``USCG-2004-17914'' and click search. Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button in the ``Actions'' column. If you do not have access to
the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-40 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments either orally at the meetings or in writing. If you bring
written comments to the meetings, you may submit them to Coast Guard
personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments. These
comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
and will include any personal information you have provided.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information on Service for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meetings,
contact Mr. Mark Gould at the telephone number or e-mail address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

    Dated: November 12, 2009.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-27639 Filed 11-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 548-549]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33213]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-149, OMB Control No. 3235-0130]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension: Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h).

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h), (17 CFR 240.17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h)), under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 17Ad-2(c),(d) and (h) enumerates the requirements with which
registered transfer agents must comply to inform the Commission or the
appropriate regulator of a transfer agent's failure to meet the minimum
performance standards set by the Commission rule by filing a notice.
    The Commission receives approximately 3 notices a year pursuant to
Rule 17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h). The estimated annual time burden of these
filings on respondents is minimal in view of: (a) The readily available
nature of most of the information required to be included in the notice
(since that information must be compiled and retained pursuant to other
Commission rules); and (b) the summary fashion in which such
information must be presented in the notice (most notices are one page
or less in length). In light of the above, and based on the experience
of the staff regarding the notices, the Commission staff estimates
that, on average, most notices require approximately one-half hour to
prepare. Thus, the Commission staff estimates that the industry-wide
total time burden is approximately 1.5 hours.
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17Ad-2(c), (d), and (h) is not less than two years following the date
the notice is submitted. The recordkeeping requirement under this rule
is mandatory to assist the Commission in monitoring transfer agents who
fail to meet the minimum performance standards set by the Commission
rule. This rule does not involve the collection of confidential
information. A transfer agent is not required to file under the rule
unless it does not meet the minimum performance standards for
turnaround, processing or forwarding items received for transfer during
a month.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission,

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii)
Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 30, 2015.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33213 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Date: 03 NOV 2004 Subject: Ametryn RED  Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Product Chemistry Considerations. Case No. 2010 DP Barcode: D307593 PC Code: 080801 From: William H. Donovan, Ph. D., Chemist Reregistration Branch 3 ( RRB3) Health Effects Division ( HED) ( 7509C)

Through: Danette Drew, Branch Senior Scientist RRB3/ HED ( 7509C)

To: Mark T. Howard, CRM Reregistration Branch 2 Special Review and Registration Division ( 7508C)

This document was originally prepared under contract by Dynamac Corporation ( 20440 Century Boulevard, Suite 100; Germantown, MD 20874; submitted 07/ 26/ 2004). The document has been reviewed by the HED and revised to reflect current OPP policies. Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 2 Executive Summary Ametryn [( 2 ethylamino) 4( isopropylamino) 6( methylthio) s triazine] is a selective methylthiotriazine herbicide registered for the control of broadleaf and grass weeds primarily in corn, pineapple, and sugarcane.

Ametryn is a FIFRA List B reregistration chemical. Available product chemistry data were assessed in the Ametryn Phase 4 Review dated 11/ 20/ 90, by S. Funk, for their adequacy in fulfilling data requirements for reregistration of ametryn. The Phase 4 Review required additional data for the Ciba Geigy ( now Syngenta Crop Protection) ametryn technical product pertaining to starting materials and enforcement analytical methods ( 830.1600 and 1800); a DCI was issued 10/ 7/ 91. MRIDs that were determined to be acceptable for Phase 5 review, as well as data submitted subsequent to the Phase 4 Review, have been reviewed by the Agency.

A DCI was issued 9/ 92 for product chemistry data on hexachlorobenzene ( HCB) and pentachlorobenzene ( PCB) in technical atrazine, ametryn, simazine, prometryn, prometon, and cyromazine ( s triazine pesticides manufactured via a common trichloro s triazine intermediate). Ciba Geigy submitted a data waiver request, which was denied ( MRID 42583102; D186543, 2/ 11/ 93, S. Funk), and subsequently proposed to analyze atrazine for HCB/ PCB and to use the results to determine whether analyses of the other s triazine pesticides were needed. The Agency agreed that if the atrazine analysis revealed HCB and/ or PCB above the LOQ ( 100 ppb), then analyses would be required for the other s triazine technical products; otherwise, no additional PCB/ HCB data would be required ( D189265, 4/ 19/ 93, S. Funk). Based on the analysis results for atrazine, analysis of the ametryn technical product for HCB/ PCB is required ( D195429, 10/ 10/ 95, S. Funk).

Additional product chemistry data are required for the Syngenta 90% ametryn T ( EPA Reg. No. 100 579). Provided that the registrant submits the data required in the attached data summary table for the ametryn T/ TGAI, and either certifies that the suppliers of beginning materials and the manufacturing process for the ametryn T/ TGAI have not changed since the last comprehensive product chemistry review or submits a complete updated product chemistry data package, the Agency has no objections to the reregistration of ametryn with respect to product chemistry data requirements.

Product Chemistry Deficiencies Additional data are required concerning product composition, preliminary analysis ( analysis for HCB/ PCB), certified limits, enforcement analytical method, UV/ visible absorption, dissociation constant, and solvent solubility ( OPPTS 830.1550, 1700, 1750, 1800, 7050, 7370, and xxxx) for the Syngenta 90% ametryn T ( EPA Reg. No. 100 579). Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 3 N N N N H S C H 3 NH CH 3 CH 3 CH 3 Background Identification of Active Ingredient The PC code and nomenclature of ametryn are listed below in Table 1. The physicochemical properties of ametryn are listed in Table 2.

TABLE 1. Ametryn Nomenclature Chemical structure Common name Ametryn Molecular Formula C9H17N5S Molecular Weight 227.35 IUPAC name N2 ethyl N4 isopropyl 6 methylthio 1,3,5 triazine 2,4 diamine CAS name N ethyl N'( 1 methylethyl) 6( methylthio) 1,3,5 triazine 2,4 diamine CAS # 834 12 8 TABLE 2. Physicochemical Properties of Ametryn Parameter Value Reference Melting point 84.5 86

C MRID 40877301 pH 8 9 at 20

C ( 1% solution in water) MRID 40877301 Density, bulk density, or specific gravity 0.373 g/ mL at 20

C MRID 40877301 Water solubility 0.020 g/ 100 mL at 20

C MRID 40877301 Solvent solubility 56.9 g/ 100 mL in acetone 61.4 g/ 100/ mL in methylene chloride 51.6 g/ 100 mL in methanol 46.0 g/ 100 mL in toluene 24.2 g/ 100 mL in n octanol 1.4 g/ 100mL in n hexane MRID 40877301 Vapor pressure 2.74 x 10 6 mm Hg at 25

C MRID 40877301 Dissociation constant, pKa 4.02 at 20

C MRID 40877301 Octanol/ water partition coefficient KOW = 423 ( log P = 2.63) MRID 40877301 UV/ visible absorption spectrum Not available Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 4 Manufacturing use Products A search of the OPPIN product listing conducted 5/ 04 identified a single technical product ( T) registered under PC Code 080801, the Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. ( formerly Ciba Geigy) 90% T ( EPA Reg. No. 100 579). Because ametryn is a List B chemical, only the T/ TGAI is subject to a reregistration eligibility decision.

830.1550 7950 Product Chemistry Data Requirements The current status of the product chemistry data requirements for the ametryn T/ TGAI is presented in the attached data summary table. Refer to this table for a listing of the outstanding product chemistry data requirements. Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 5 Case No. 2010 Chemical No. 080801 Case Name: Ametryn Registrant: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Product( s): 90% T ( EPA Reg. No. 100 579)

PRODUCT CHEMISTRY DATA SUMMARY Guideline Number Requirement Are Data Requirements Fulfilled? 1 MRID Number 2 830.1550 Product identity and composition N 3, 4 40844701, CSF 8/ 19/ 85 830.1600 Description of materials used to produce the product Y 40844701 830.1620 Description of production process Y 40844701 5, 43335901 6 830.1670 Discussion of formation of impurities Y 40844701 830.1700 Preliminary analysis N 7 41067901 830.1750 Certified limits N 4, 8 40844701, 41067901, CSF 8/ 19/ 85 830.1800 Enforcement analytical method N 9 41067901 4 830.6302 Color Y 40877301 830.6303 Physical state Y 40877301 830.6304 Odor Y 40877301 830.6313 Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals, and metal ions Y 40877301, 42470901 10, 42631501 11 830.7000 pH Y 40877301 830.7050 UV/ visible absorption N 830.7200 Melting point/ melting range Y 40877301 830.7220 Boiling point/ boiling range N/ A 12 830.7300 Density/ relative density/ bulk density Y 40877301 830.7370 Dissociation constant N 13 40877301 830.7550 Partition coefficient ( n octanol/ water), shake flask method Y 40877301 830.7840 Water solubility; column elution method; shake flask method Y 40877301 830. xxxx Solvent solubility N 13 40877301 830.7950 Vapor pressure Y 40877301 1 Y = Yes; N = No; N/ A = Not Applicable.

2 All references were found to be acceptable for Phase 5 review in the Ametryn Phase 4 Review ( 11/ 20/ 90) unless otherwise noted.

3 Nominal concentrations must be proposed for the active and inert ingredients and for all related compounds ( i. e., impurities) present in the product at  0.1%.

4 An updated CSF is required reflecting the following: ( i) the current registrant; ( ii) the nominal concentration and upper and lower certified limits for the active ingredient and each inert ingredient; ( iii) the purpose of each inert ingredient in the product; and ( iv) the nominal concentration and upper certified limit for all impurities present in the product at  0.1%.

5 D169896, 4/ 20/ 93, S. Funk. Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 6 6 D207635, currently under review.

7 Analysis for HCB/ PCB remains outstanding. We note that if HCB or PCB is detected, an upper certified limit will need to be proposed and included on the CSF, and an enforcement method will be required.

8 An explanation of the basis of the certified limits proposed in the Certification of Limits included in MRID 41067901, including how the certified limits were determined, is required; otherwise, revised certified limits must be proposed.

9 The method for the active ingredient must be resubmitted as a non confidential method.

10 D182839, 10/ 27/ 92, A. Aikens.

11 D187515, 2/ 25/ 93, F. Toghrol.

12 Data are not required because the TGAI is a solid at room temperature.

13 The method used and raw data to support the study results are required. Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Study Citations 40844701 Lail, L. ( 1988) Product Chemistry: Technical Ametryn: Study No. PC 88 018. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba Geigy Corp. 205 p.

40877301 Lail, L. ( 1988) Technical Ametryn: Product Chemistry: Study No. PC 88 018. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba Geigy Corp. 136 p.

41067901 Lail, L. ( 1989) Technical Ametryn: Product Chemistry: Study No. PC 89 002. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba Geigy Corp. 108 p.

42470901 Stubbs, D. ( 1992) Product Chemistry: Ametryn Technical: Lab Project Number: PC 92 027. Unpublished study prepared by CIBA GEIGY Corp. 5 p.

42583102 Lail, L.; Verma, M. ( 1992) Product Chemistry: Technical Ametryn: Lab Project Number: PC 92 039. Unpublished study prepared by CIBA GEIGY Corp., Agricultural Division. 19 p.

42631501 Stubbs, D. ( 1993) Product Chemistry ( Stability): Technical Ametryn: A Supplement. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba Geigy. 17 p.

43335901 McCain, P. ( 1994) Technical Ametryn Product Chemistry ( Manufacturing Process): Addendum: Lab Project Number. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba Geigy Corp. 8 p.

Agency Memoranda Citations DP Barcode( s): D182839 Subject: Ametryn Reregistration. Product Chemistry Guideline 63 13  Stability. Response to Phase 4 Review. From: A. Aikens To: L. Deluise/ T. Luminello Dated: 10/ 27/ 92 MRID( s): 42470901 DP Barcode( s): D186543 Subject: Data Call In for Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene in Technical Ametryn; Waiver Request. From: S. Funk To: D. Utterback Dated: 2/ 11/ 93 MRID( s): 42583102 Ametryn RED: Product Chemistry Considerations Barcode: D307593 8 DP Barcode( s): D187515 Subject: Ametryn Reregistration: a List B Chemical ( Chemical No. 080801; Case No. 2010). CIBA GEIGY: Response to the Ametryn Product Chemistry Phase 4 Review ( dated 11/ 19/ 90) data requirements Regarding Stability ( Guideline # 63 13). From: F. Toghrol To: K. Davis/ T. Luminello Dated: 2/ 25/ 93 MRID( s): 42631501 DP Barcode( s): D189265 Subject: Data Call In for Hexachlorobenzene and Pentachlorobenzene in Technical Atrazine, Ametryn, Simazine, Prometryn, Prometon, and Cyromazine. Chemical No. 061001. Waiver Request and Analytical Method Protocol. From: S. Funk To: D. Utterback Dated: 4/ 19/ 93 MRID( s): None DP Barcode( s): D169896 Subject: Reregistration of Ametryn. Ciba Geigy Corp. 90 Day Response to Phase 4 DCI. Chemical No. 080801. From: S. Funk To: K. Davis/ T. Luminello Dated: 4/ 20/ 93 MRID( s): None DP Barcode( s): D195429 Subject: Atrazine ( Chemical 080803, Case 0062, List A). Product Chemistry. Determination of HCB/ PCB in Ciba Geigy Technical ( 100 529). From: S. Funk To: R. Dumas/ D. Utterback Dated: 10/ 10/ 95 MRID( s): 42925201


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15889-15890]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07525]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83005; File No. SR-Phlx-2018-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 1101A

April 6, 2018.
    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 March 28, 2018, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1101A, Terms of Option
Contracts, Section (b)(vii)(4) in order to clarify trading hours of
expiring Weekly Expirations and End of Month (``EOM'') options on the
last trading day.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify trading hours
of expiring Weekly Expirations and EOM options on the last trading
day.\3\ Currently, Rule 1101A(b)(vii)(4) provides that Transactions in
Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be effected on the Exchange between the
hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time). A
separate rule, Rule 1101A(c), applies to index option trading hours
specifically on the day of expiration. That rule provides that, unless
the Board of Directors has established different hours of trading for
certain index options, such option shall trade until 4:00 p.m. on the
business day of expiration or, in the case of an option contract
expiring on a day that is not a business day, the business day prior to
the expiration date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange also proposes to place the caption to Rule
1101A(b)(vii) in bold type, to conform that caption to the other
rule section captions in Rule 1101A(b) for ease of reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board of Directors has not established different hours of
trading specifically for expiration days for Weekly Expirations and
EOMs. In order to clarify that the trading hours set forth in Weekly
Expirations and EOMs in Rule 1101A(b)(vii)(4) do not apply on
expiration day pursuant to Rule 1101A(c), the Exchange proposes to add
language to Rule 1101A(b)(vii)(4) stating that on the last trading day,
transactions in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be effected on
the Exchange between the hours of 9:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) and 4:00
p.m. (Eastern Time). The language proposed to be added is based on a
comparable rule of Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CBOE Rule 24.9(e)(4) provides that ``[o]n the last trading
day, transactions in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs may be
effected on the Exchange between the hours of 8:30 a.m. (Chicago
time) and 3:00 p.m. (Chicago time).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CBOE explained in the proposed rule change adopting current CBOE
Rule 24.9(e), Weekly Expirations and EOM options which are p.m.-settled
are priced in the market based on corresponding futures values. On the
last day of trading, the closing prices of the component stocks (which
are used to derive the exercise settlement value) are known at 4:00
p.m. (Eastern Time) (or soon after) when the equity markets close.
Despite the fact that the exercise settlement value is fixed at or soon
after 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time), if trading in expiring Weekly
Expirations and EOMs were to continue for an additional fifteen minutes
until 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) they would not be priced on
corresponding futures values, but rather the known cash value. At the
same time, the prices of non-expiring Weekly Expiration and EOM series
would continue to move and be priced in response to changes in
corresponding futures prices. Because of the potential pricing
divergence that could occur between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m. on the final
trading day in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs (e.g., switch from
pricing off of futures to cash), the Exchange believes that, in order
to mitigate potential investor confusion, it is appropriate to cease
trading in expiring Weekly Expirations and EOMs at 4:00 p.m. on the
last day of trading.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64243 (April 7,
2011), 76 FR 20771 (April 13, 2011) (SR-CBOE-2011-038) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding
Close of Trading Hours for Expiring End of Week and End of Month
Expirations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
As noted above, the proposed rule change will state clearly the trading
hours of expiring Weekly Expirations and EOM options on the last
trading day for those options directly in the section of the rulebook
dealing with those types of options. The added clarity will protect

investors and the public interest by eliminating any potential for
ambiguity or confusion on the part of the investing public regarding
last trading day trading hours for these options. As noted above, the
proposed new language regarding trading hours on the last trading day
of Weekly Expiration and EOM options tracks similar CBOE language,
thereby protecting investors and the public interest by eliminating any
additional potential for confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On
the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendment will
benefit investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general
by eliminating a potential ambiguity in the Exchange's rules and
setting forth clearly the last trading day trading hours for Weekly
Expirations and EOM options in the section of the index options rules
dealing specifically with those options.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\11\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the
Exchange to immediately conform the trading hours for its Nonstandard
Expirations Pilot Program to that of another exchange's Nonstandard
Expirations Pilot Program, eliminate a potential source of confusion on
the part of the investing public, as well as avoid potential pricing
divergence difficulties that could occur between 4:00 and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time). The Exchange's proposal does not raise new issues.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2018-28 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-Phlx-2018-28. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2018-28, and should be submitted on
or before May 3, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07525 Filed 4-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29362-29369]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0787; FRL-9911-12-OAR]

Approval of States' Requests To Relax the Federal Reid Vapor
Pressure Volatility Standard in Florida, and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill and Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Areas in North Carolina

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve requests from Florida and North Carolina for the EPA
to relax the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in
six counties in Florida, and in counties in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel
Hill Area (also referred to as the ``Triangle Area'') and the
Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High Point Area (also referred to as the
``Triad Area'') in North Carolina. Specifically, the EPA is approving
amendments to the regulations to change the RVP standard for six
counties in Florida, and for the counties in the Triangle and Triad
Areas from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline.
Additionally, the EPA is responding to adverse comments received for
this action. The EPA has determined that these changes to the Federal
RVP regulation are consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This final rule will become effective on May 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0787. 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 Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., 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 Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rudolph Kapichak, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-
4574; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this document. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

Table of Contents

I. General Information

II. Actions Being Taken
III. History of Gasoline Volatility Requirement
IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas
V. The EPA's Analysis of Florida's Request To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirements in the State
VI. The EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the
Federal RVP Requirements in the Triangle and Triad Areas
VII. Response to Comments
VIII. Final Action
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
X. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    Effective date. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take
effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal
Register. The EPA is issuing this final rule under CAA section
307(d)(1). Section 307(d)(1) states: ``The provisions of section 553
through 557 . . . of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in
this section, apply to actions to which this subsection applies.''
Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is
nevertheless acting consistently with the policies underlying APA
section 553(d) in making this rule effective on May 30, 2014. APA
section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication for a rule that ``that grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This rule fits within
that exception because it lifts the restriction on the introduction
into commerce of gasoline with a RVP of greater than 7.8 psi sold in
areas in Florida and North Carolina between June 1 and September 15 of
each year. Because today's action can be considered to relieve a
restriction that would otherwise prevent the introduction into commerce
of gasoline with a RVP of greater than 7.8 psi, the EPA is making this
action effective on May 30, 2014.

I. General Information

    Throughout this document, ``the Agency'' is used to mean the EPA.
    Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and
distributors who do business in Florida and in North Carolina.
Regulated entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            NAICS Codes
       Examples of potentially regulated entities               \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum refineries....................................          324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.....................          424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations................................          447110
Gasoline Transporters...................................          484220
                                                                  484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    This table provides only a guide for readers regarding entities
likely to be regulated by this action. You should carefully examine the
regulations in 40 CFR 80.27 to determine whether your facility is
impacted. If you have further questions, call the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

II. Actions Being Taken

    This final rule approves a request from Florida to change the
summertime RVP standard for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm
Beach and Pinellas counties in Florida from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by
amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). Additionally,
this final rule approves a request from North Carolina to change the
summertime RVP standard for the Triangle and Triad Areas from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The
Triangle Area is comprised of Durham and Wake Counties, and the
Dutchville Township portion of Granville County. The Triad Area is
comprised of the counties of Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford in their
entirety, and the portion of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River,
Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek and back to
Yadkin River.
    In previous rulemakings, the EPA approved state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions from Florida and North Carolina which provided
technical analyses that demonstrated that removal of the Federal RVP
requirements of 7.8 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September
15 of each year in the six counties in Florida, and the North Carolina
Triangle and Triad Areas would not interfere with maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in these areas. For more
information on Florida's SIP revision for the six Florida counties and
the EPA's analysis of Florida's SIP revision refer to the January 6,
2014, final rule at 79 FR 573; on North Carolina's SIP revision for the
Triangle Area refer to the January 2, 2014 final rule at 79 FR 47; and
on North Carolina's SIP revision for the Triad Area refer to the
January 24, 2014 final rule at 79 FR 4082.
    As mentioned above, this final rule approves requests from Florida
and North Carolina to change the summertime RVP standard for six
Florida counties, and for the Triangle and Triad Areas from 7.8 psi to
9.0 psi by amending the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). The
preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows. Section III
provides the history of federal gasoline volatility regulation. Section
IV describes the policy regarding relaxation of volatility standards in
ozone nonattainment areas that are redesignated as attainment areas.
Section V provides information specific to Florida's request for the
six counties currently subject to the 7.8 psi summertime RVP
requirements. Section VI provides information specific to North
Carolina's requests for the counties in the Triangle and Triad Areas
that are currently subject to the 7.8 psi summertime RVP requirements.
Section VII provides EPA's response to the adverse comment received.
Finally, Section VIII presents the final action in response to the
requests from Florida and North Carolina.

III. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), the EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma
or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c)
of the CAA, the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR
11868) that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These
regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline
during the high ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), the EPA
promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the
volatility control program. These requirements established maximum

RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month,
and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the
1-hour ozone NAAQS).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to
address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires the EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. Section 211(h) prohibits the EPA from establishing a volatility
standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that
the Agency may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former
ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA.
The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP
above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning
in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for
certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility
controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991, the EPA will rely on states to initiate
changes to the volatility program. The EPA's policy for approving such
changes is described in Section IV of this preamble.
    Florida and North Carolina initiated these changes by requesting
that the EPA relax the 7.8 psi RVP standard for counties that are in
ozone maintenance areas. Accordingly, the States revised their original
modeling and maintenance demonstrations for these areas to reflect
continued attainment under the relaxed 9.0 psi RVP standard that the
States have requested. See Section V of this action for information
specific to Florida's request for the six counties currently subject to
the 7.8 psi summertime RVP requirements. See Section VI of this action
for information specific to North Carolina's requests for the counties
in the Triangle and Triad Areas that are currently subject to the 7.8
psi summertime RVP requirements.

IV. The EPA's Policy Regarding Relaxation of Volatility Standards in
Ozone Nonattainment Areas That Are Redesignated as Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for the EPA's amended Phase II volatility
standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the volatility standard for a
nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an attainment
area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that revises
the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility
standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the 7.8
psi RVP will remain in effect, even after such an area is redesignated
to attainment, until a separate rulemaking is completed that revises
the RVP standard in that area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991, rulemaking, the EPA believes
that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in
conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section
107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to
section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining
attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's
circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the
area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the
more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent
volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its
attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request
for redesignation, the EPA will not relax the volatility standard
unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan
demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the EPA, that the area will
maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more
stringent volatility standard.

V. The EPA's Analysis of Florida's Request To Relax the Federal RVP
Requirements in the State

    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated and classified the
Southeast Florida area (i.e., Broward, Dade and Palm Beach counties) as
Moderate; the Jacksonville area (i.e., Duval County) as Transitional;
and the Tampa area (i.e., Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) as
Marginal nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR
56694 (November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to
meet certain RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the
high ozone season. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP
requirements for gasoline sold in these three 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas was 7.8 psi from June 1 through September 15 of
each year. Subsequently, each area was redesignated to attainment for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ Florida's redesignation requests did not
include a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility
standard.2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 60 FR 41, (January 3, 1995); 60 FR 10326 (February 24,
1995); and 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995), respectively.
    \2\ Effective on June 15, 2004, Broward, Dade, Duval,
Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties were designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23857.
    \3\ Effective on July 20, 2012, the same counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 15, 2013, the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), submitted a request for
the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi in Broward,
Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties in Florida.
The State also submitted a technical analysis which demonstrated that
the less-stringent RVP in these counties would not interfere with
continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or any other
applicable standard.\4\ Specifically, the State updated the 10-year
maintenance plans that were submitted for the three 1-hour ozone
maintenance areas under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.\5\ As required, these section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans
provided for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these
areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
plans also included components demonstrating how each area will
continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provided
contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. Florida's
previous ozone redesignation requests and maintenance plans for these
areas did

not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard. See 75 FR 29671 (May 27, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Maintenance areas for the 1-hour ozone standard designated
attainment/unclassifiable for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard are
required to submit a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the
CAA demonstrating maintenance out to 10 years after designation. See
69 FR 23996 (April 30, 2004).
    \5\ The EPA has determined that redesignated 1-hour ozone
attainment areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas
may rely on the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of
requesting relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard. See
73 FR 8202, 8205 (February 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, on August 15, 2013, FDEP submitted changes to
the three CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans that collectively
cover Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas
Counties in Florida. Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision modifies
the existing section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans to account for a less
stringent applicable RVP gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for these
areas. Specifically, Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision included
an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP
requirement would have on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone
standards, and on other applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated Florida's
August 15, 2013, SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject
to public notice-and-comment and no comments were received. The EPA
approved Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision on January 6, 2014.
See 79 FR 573. In this final action, based on the previous approval of
Florida's August 15, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the areas
are currently attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is approving Florida's
request to relax the high ozone season RVP standard for Broward, Dade,
Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas counties from 7.8 psi to
9.0 psi.

VI. The EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the
Federal RVP Requirements in the Triangle and Triad Areas

    The following two sections provide the EPA's analysis of North
Carolina's requests to relax the Federal RVP requirements in the
Triangle and Triad Areas.

A. The EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the Federal
RVP Requirement in the Triangle Area

    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated and classified Durham and
Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County
(also known as the Triangle Area at the time) as a Moderate
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment
areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain
RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the high ozone
season. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP requirement for
gasoline sold in the Triangle Area was 7.8 psi from June 1 through
September 15 of each year. On April 18, 1994, the Triangle Area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 59 FR
18300. North Carolina's redesignation request for the Triangle Area did
not include a request for relaxation of the gasoline volatility
standard.6 7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Effective on June 15, 2004, the nonattainment area for the
Triangle Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS was expanded from Durham and
Wake Counties, and the Dutchville Township portion of Granville
County, to also include Franklin, Johnston, Orange, and Person
Counties, and the remainder of Granville County and Baldwin, Center,
New Hope and Williams Townships in Chatham County. See 69 FR 23857.
    \7\ On December 26, 2007 the Triangle Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 72 FR 72948.
    \8\ Effective on July 20, 2012, the same counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR),
submitted a request for the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of
7.8 psi in Wake and Durham Counties, and the Dutchville Township
portion of Granville County that was originally included in the 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The State also submitted a technical analysis
that demonstrated that the less-stringent RVP in these counties would
not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
or any other applicable standard. Specifically, the State updated the
10-year maintenance plan that was submitted for the Triangle 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance area under section 175A of the CAA. As required,
this section 175A maintenance plan provided for continued attainment
and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
from the EPA's redesignation of the area from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This plan also included
components demonstrating how the area will continue to attain the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provided contingency measures should the area
violate the NAAQS. North Carolina's previous ozone redesignation
requests and maintenance plans for this area did not remove the 7.8 psi
RVP standard. See 72 FR 72948 (December 26, 2007).
    As mentioned above, on March 27, 2013, NC DENR submitted changes to
the section 175A maintenance plan for the Triangle Area. North
Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision modifies the existing section
175A maintenance plan to account for a less stringent applicable RVP
gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for the Triangle Area. Specifically,
North Carolina's March 27, 2013, SIP revision included an evaluation of
the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have
on maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, and on other
applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated North Carolina's March 27, 2013,
SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public
notice-and-comment. No adverse comments and one supportive comment were
received on that proposed action. The EPA approved North Carolina's
March 27, 2013, SIP revision on January 2, 2014. See 79 FR 47. In this
action, based on the EPA's previous approval of North Carolina's March
27, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the Triangle Area is
currently attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is approving North
Carolina's request to relax the RVP standard for Wake and Durham
Counties, and a portion of Granville County in North Carolina from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi from June 1 through September 15 of each year.

B. The EPA's Analysis of North Carolina's Requests To Relax the Federal
RVP Requirement in the Triad Area

    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated Davidson, Forsyth and
Guilford counties in their entirety and the portion of Davie County
bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchmans Creek, North Carolina Highway
801, Fulton Creek and back to Yadkin River in the Triad Area as a
Moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment
areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain
RVP standards for gasoline sold commercially during the ozone season.
See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Thus, the RVP requirement for gasoline
sold in the Triad Area was 7.8 psi from June 1 through September 15 of
each year. On April 18, 1994, the Triad Area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. See 59 FR 18300. North
Carolina's redesignation request for the Triad Area did not include a
request for the relaxation of the gasoline volatility
standard.9 10 11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Effective June 15, 2004 for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Triad
Area was designated as nonattainment with a deferred effective date
as part of the Early Action Compact (EAC) program. As part of this
action the Triad Area was expanded to include the entire county of
Davie, and Alamance, Caswell, Randolph, and Rockingham Counties in
their entirety. See 69 FR 23857.
    \10\ For more information on the EAC program, see http://www.epa.gov/airquality/eac/fs20080331_eac.html.
    \11\ The Triad Area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS and on
February 2, 2008, the EPA finalized an action for 13 nonattainment
areas with deferred effective dates, including the Triad Area,
designating these areas attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
However, as a former 1-hour ozone maintenance area the Triad Area
was required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section
110(a)(1) of the CAA. See 73 FR 17897.
    \12\ Effective July 20, 2012, the Triad Area counties were
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088.

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

    On April 12, 2013, the State of North Carolina, through NC DENR,
submitted a request for the EPA to relax the Federal RVP requirement of
7.8 psi in Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties and the relevant
portion of Davie County. The State also submitted a technical analysis
which demonstrated that the less-stringent RVP in the aforementioned
counties would not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or any other applicable standard. Specifically, the
State updated the 10-year maintenance plan that was submitted for the
Triad 1-hour ozone maintenance area under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\13\ As required, this section 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan provided for continued attainment and maintenance of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective
date of the area's designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This plan also included components demonstrating how the area
will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provided
contingency measures should the area violate the NAAQS. North
Carolina's previous ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan
for this area did not remove the 7.8 psi RVP standard. See 77 FR 3611
(January 25, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA has determined that redesignated 1-hour ozone
attainment areas that are designated 8-hour ozone attainment areas
may rely on the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of
requesting relaxation of the more stringent volatility standard. 73
FR 8202, 8205 (February 13, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, on April 12, 2013, NC DENR submitted changes to
the section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Triad Area. North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision modifies the existing section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan to account for a less stringent applicable
RVP gasoline requirement of 9.0 psi for the area. Specifically, North
Carolina's April 12, 2013, SIP revision included an evaluation of the
impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on
maintenance of the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards, and on other
applicable NAAQS. The EPA evaluated North Carolina's April 12, 2013,
SIP revision in a previous rulemaking that was subject to public
notice-and-comment. No adverse comments and one supportive comment were
received on that proposed action. The EPA approved North Carolina's
April 12, 2013, SIP revision on January 24, 2014. See 79 FR 4082. In
this action, based on the previous approval of North Carolina's April
12, 2013, SIP revision, and the fact that the Triad Area is currently
attaining all ozone NAAQS, the EPA is approving North Carolina's
request to relax the high ozone season RVP standard for Davidson,
Forsyth and Guilford Counties and a portion of Davie County from 7.8
psi to 9.0 psi.

VII. Response to Comments

    On March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17889), the EPA published a direct final
rule to approve requests from Florida and North Carolina for the EPA to
relax the RVP standard in six counties in Florida and in the Triangle
Area and Triad Area in North Carolina. The EPA published a parallel
proposal in the event that adverse comments were received such that the
direct final rule would need to be withdrawn. Specifically, in the
direct final rule, the EPA stated that if adverse comments were
received by April 30, 2014, the direct final rule would be withdrawn
and not take effect. The EPA further stated that the corresponding
proposed rule would remain in effect and that any adverse comments
received would be responded to in a subsequent final rule provided the
EPA was able to address such comments.\14\ On March 29, 2014, EPA
received comments on the rulemaking. Although, for the reasons
discussed below, these comments are outside of the scope of today's
action, the EPA viewed these comments as adverse. Therefore, the EPA
has withdrawn the direct final rule in a separate Federal Register
notice and is providing a summary of comments received and the EPA's
responses to the comments in today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The EPA also noted that an additional public comment period
would not be instituted for the action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The commenter stated ``EPA must disapprove this proposal
because EPA has failed to conduct a Clean Air Act 110(l) analysis of
the impacts the increased emissions will have on the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In addition, EPA would need to reconsider its analysis for Florida and
North Carolina's CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
consider this rule rollback for 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. This includes impacts in downwind nonattainment areas.
Furthermore, ozone monitors in Forsyth and Guildford Counties have
2010-2012 design values above the 2008 ozone NAAQS.''
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions that
EPA should disapprove the proposal, and generally believes these
comments are beyond the scope of today's action. Section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act applies to revisions to a state implementation plan
submitted by a State. However, this rulemaking does not approve any SIP
revisions. Rather, it revises federal regulations (40 CFR Part 80)
applicable to gasoline introduced into commerce in certain areas.
Moreover, contrary to the commenter's claims, EPA did evaluate the
impacts of change to the summertime RVP (consistent with CAA section
110(l)) in relation to the States' requests for the EPA to relax the
RVP requirements for six counties in Florida and for the Triad and
Triangle Areas in North Carolina. The EPA's analyses in relation to the
States' requests for the EPA to relax the RVP requirement in the
aforementioned areas were included in previous rulemakings (see 79 FR
47 (January 2, 2014), 79 FR 573 (January 6, 2014), and 79 FR 4082
(January 24, 2014)) through which the EPA approved Florida and North
Carolina's SIP revisions that address these changes. The EPA's analyses
(which also included evaluation of impacts to the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in addition to other applicable requirements of the CAA) for
each area were subject to a 30-day public notice-and-comment, and no
adverse comments were received on any of the proposed actions. The
opportunity for the commenter to express concerns regarding the
requirements of Section 110(l), and the EPA's analyses of whether the
change to the Federal RVP requirements for the six counties in Florida
and for the Triangle and the Triad areas would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS was during the EPA's previous
rulemakings where the EPA specifically solicited comment on this. The
notices for this rulemaking did not reopen any of those actions.
    With regard to the commenter's assertion that ``. . . ozone
monitors in Forsyth and Guildford Counties have 2010-2012 design values
above the 2008 ozone NAAQS,'' we note (as included in the EPA's
rulemaking for the Triad area (79 FR 4082)) that based on the 2011-2013
design values, the ozone monitors in Forsyth and Guilford Counties were
not above the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    The commenter also mentions that ``EPA would need to reconsider its
analysis for Florida and North Carolina's CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the

1997 ozone NAAQS and consider this rule rollback for 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.'' This comment is not directly relevant to
this action as the comment does not address whether or not the EPA
should finalize the proposed action, but instead identifies additional
actions the commenter believes the EPA would need to take if this
action is finalized. Also, the comment does not clearly identify any
specific analysis that should be reconsidered by the EPA. The EPA is
currently working on a proposed rule to quantify state obligations with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and will
be accepting public comment on all aspects of that proposal. The EPA
has not recently acted on SIP submissions addressing the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS for
either Florida or North Carolina.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Florida and North Carolina both submitted SIPs intended to
address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) through participation
in the CAIR trading programs. These SIP submissions were approved by
EPA. See 72 FR 58016 (October 12, 2007) (Florida), 72 FR 56914
(October 5, 2007) (North Carolina). The D.C. Circuit, however,
subsequently remanded CAIR, finding that participation in the CAIR
trading programs could not be said to satisfy states'
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations. In response to the remand of CAIR,
the EPA has finalized a new rule to address the interstate transport
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States.
See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule'' or CSAPR). This rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in 2012.
EME Homer City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012),
cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2857 (2013) On April 29, 2014 the Supreme
Court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. (EPA et
al. v. EME Homer City Generation L.P., et al., Slip Op.No. 12-1182,
S. Ct. 2013, April 29, 2014)
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to approve requests from Florida and
North Carolina for the EPA to relax the RVP applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year in
six counties in Florida, and in the counties of the Triangle and Triad
Areas in North Carolina. Specifically, this action amends the
applicable RVP standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR
80.27(a)(2) for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and
Pinellas counties in Florida; Wake and Durham Counties, and a portion
of Dutchville Township in Granville County in the Triangle Area in
North Carolina; and Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties and a
portion of Davie County in the Triad Area.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    As of January 24, 2014, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
determined that 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.

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 today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 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. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are refiners, importers
or blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP
gasoline for sale in the Florida and North Carolina areas and gasoline
distributors and retail stations in those areas.
    This action will relax the Federal RVP standard for gasoline sold
in portions of Florida and North Carolina, during the ozone control
season (June 1 to September 15), from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi, and is
therefore expected not to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small entities beyond those, if any,
already required by or resulting from the CAA Section 211(h) Volatility
Control program.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Today's final rule affects portions of Florida and North Carolina of
which the EPA estimates lower fuel costs as a result of this action,
therefore reducing cost on businesses and consumers. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule 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. As discussed above,
the rule relaxes an existing standard and affects only the gasoline
industry.

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. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This action does
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this

action present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations 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, 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider 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 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    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 does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule will relax the applicable volatility standard of
gasoline during the summer possibly resulting in slightly higher mobile
source emissions. However, Florida and North Carolina have demonstrated
in maintenance plans that this action will not interfere with
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and therefore disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations are not an anticipated result.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 May 30, 2014.

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by the EPA.
This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed
in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: (i) when
the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
when such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action
is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in
taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such
action is based on such a determination.''
    This rule is ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of
section 307(b)(1). This rule establishes RVP requirements for multiple
counties in different States. At the core of this rulemaking is the
EPA's interpretation of the requirements of section 211(h) of the CAA,
and its application of that interpretation to different areas of the
country.
    For the same reasons, the Administrator also is determining that
this action is of nationwide scope and effect for the purposes of
section 307(b)(1). This is particularly appropriate because, in the
report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section 307(b)(1) of the
CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's determination that an
action is of ``nationwide scope or effect'' would be appropriate for
any action that has a scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-
03. Here, the scope and effect of this rulemaking extends to two
different judicial circuits. In these circumstances, section 307(b)(1)
and its legislative history calls for the Administrator to find the
rule to be of ``nationwide scope or effect'' and for venue to be in the
D.C. Circuit.
    Thus, any petitions for review of final designations 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.
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).

X. Legal Authority and Statutory Provisions

    Authority for this final action is in sections 211(h) and 301(a) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle and
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Title 40, chapter I, part 80 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).

0
2. In Sec.  80.27(a)(2)(ii), the table is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Florida;
0
b. Revising the entry for North Carolina; and
0
c. Adding footnotes 5, 6, and 7.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  80.27  Controls and prohibitions on gasoline volatility.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *

                               Applicable Standards \1\ 1992 and Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              State                     May            June            July           August         September
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida.........................             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0
Southeast Florida, Tampa Bay and             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0
 Jacksonville \5\...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina
    Triad \6\...................             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0
    Triangle \7\................             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0             9.0
All other volatility                         9.0             7.8             7.8             7.8             7.8
 nonattainment areas............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards are expressed in pounds per square inch (psi).
* * * * * * *
\5\ The standard for Broward, Dade, Duval, Hillsborough, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties from June 1 until
  September 15 in 1992 through 2013 was 7.8 psi.
\6\ The standard for Davidson, Forsyth and Guilford Counties and a portion of Davie County from June 1 until
  September 15 in 1992 through 2013 was 7.8 psi.
\7\ The standard for Durham and Wake Counties, and a portion of Dutchville Township in Granville County from
  June 1 until September 15 in 1992 through 2013 was 7.8 psi.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-11911 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P