45766 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0520; FRL–8953–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Opacity Variance for Rocket Testing 

Operations Atlantic Research 

Corporation’s Orange County Facility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

revisions pertain to the addition of 9 

VAC 5 Chapter 220, ‘‘Variance for 

Rocket Motor Test Operations at 

Atlantic Research Corporation Orange 

County Facility’’ and an opacity 

variance for the rocket motor test 

operations at Aerojet Corporation’s 

Orange County Facility, in lieu of the 

opacity limits established in the 

Virginia SIP. EPA is approving these 

revisions to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia SIP in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 3, 2009 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by October 5, 2009. If 

EPA receives such comments, it will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2009–0520 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0520, 

Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2009– 

0520. 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or 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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On January 26, 2004, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted 

an opacity variance for the rocket motor 

test operations at Aerojet Corporation’s 

Orange County Facility as a revision to 

its SIP. The variance is included in Title 

9 of the Virginia Administrative Code (9 

VAC Chapter 220). Virginia established 

a variance that requires the facility to 

limit total particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from its rocket motor test 

operations to 714 pounds per hour (9 

VAC 5–220–30.B), in lieu of opacity 

limits set forth in regulation 9 VAC 

5–50–80. 

On February 19, 2009, Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) submitted additional 

information to support the variance for 

the rocket motor test operations, which 

included a comprehensive technical 

support document (TSD) that provides 

additional air dispersion modeling 

information. 

II. Description of SIP Revision 

This SIP revision consists of the 

addition of the ‘‘Variance for Rocket 

Motor Test Operations at Atlantic 

Research Corporation Orange County 

Facility’’ (9 VAC 5 Chapter 220) in order 

to add regulations 9 VAC 5–220–10— 

Applicability and designation of 

affected facility, 9 VAC 5–220–20— 

Definitions, 9 VAC 5–220–30— 

Applicability of standard for visible 

emissions and standard for particulate 

matter, 9 VAC 5–220–40—Compliance 

determination, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting, 9 VAC 5– 

220–50—Transfer of ownership and 9 

VAC 5–220–60—Applicability of future 

regulation amendments. 

The addition of the ‘‘Variance for 

Rocket Motor Test Operations at 

Atlantic Research Corporation Orange 

County Facility’’ (9 VAC 5 Chapter 220) 

pertains to Atlantic Research 

Corporation Orange County Facility in 

terms of applicability and designation, 

definitions, compliance determination, 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

recording, transfer of ownership, and 

applicability of future regulation 

amendments. This revision does not 

change the substance of the SIP and 

consequently, does not interfere with 

the timely attainment or progress 

towards attainment of a national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), 

nor interfere with any other provision of 

the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

The addition of regulation 9 VAC 5– 

220–30—‘‘Applicability of standard for 

visible emissions and standard for 

particulate matter’’ is to establish PM 

emission limits for Aerojet 

Corporation’s rocket test operations, in 

lieu of opacity standards established in 

regulation 9 VAC 5–50–80. As part of 

this SIP revision, VADEQ included a 

modeling analysis titled ‘‘Technical 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45767 

Support Documentation for Opacity 

Variance for Rocket Test Facility’’ 

which demonstrates that emissions from 

Aerojet Corporation’s Orange County 

Facility will not cause or significantly 

contribute to violations of the PM 

NAAQS. Further details of VADEQ and 

EPA’s modeling analysis can be found 

in EPA’s TSD for this rulemaking. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Virginia’s SIP 

revision to add the ‘‘Variance for Rocket 

Motor Test Operations at Atlantic 

Research Corporation Orange County 

Facility’’ (9 VAC 5 Chapter 220), which 

includes regulation 9 VAC 5–220–30— 

‘‘Applicability of standard for visible 

emissions and standard for particulate 

matter’’ to establish PM emission limits 

for Aerojet Corporation’s rocket test 

operations in lieu of opacity standards 

established in regulation 9 VAC 5–50– 

80. EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on November 3, 2009 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by October 5, 2009. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. Please note that 

if EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
45768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 3, 2009. 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, 

pertaining to the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s opacity variance for rocket 

testing operations at Atlantic Research 

Corporation’s Orange County Facility, 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: August 26, 2009. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry for 

Chapter 220 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date 

Explanation 

[former SIP 

citation] 

* * * * * * * 

9 VAC 5 Chapter 220 Opacity Variance for Rocket Testing Operations Atlantic Research Corporation’s Orange County Facility 

5–220–10 ............................ Applicability and designation of affected facility ............ 12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

5–220–20 ............................ Definitions ....................................................................... 12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

5–220–30 ............................ Applicability of standard for visible emissions and 

standard for particulate matter.

12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

5–220–40 ............................ Compliance determination, monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting.

12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

5–220–50 ............................ Transfer of ownership .................................................... 12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

5–220–60 ............................ Applicability of future regulations ................................... 12/1/02 09/4/09 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

* * * * * * * 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 45769 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–21399 Filed 9–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258 

[EPA–R07–RCRA–2009–0646; FRL–8953–3] 

Adequacy of Kansas Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfill Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action approves Kansas’ 

Research, Development and 

Demonstration (RD&D) permit program 

and updates to the approved Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfill Permit (MSWLP) 

program. On March 22, 2004, the EPA 

issued final regulations allowing RD&D 

permits to be issued to certain 

municipal solid waste landfills by 

approved States. On December 11, 2008, 

Kansas submitted an application to the 

EPA seeking Federal approval of its 

RD&D requirements and to update 

Federal approval of its MSWLP 

program. 

DATES: This direct final determination is 

effective November 3, 2009, without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comments by October 5, 2009. 

If adverse comments are received, EPA 

will publish a timely response or 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will or will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

RCRA–2009–0646, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: cruise.nicole@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Send written comments to 

Nicole Cruise, EPA Region 7, Solid 

Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to Nicole Cruise, EPA 

Region 7, Solid waste/Pollution 

Prevention Branch, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–RCRA–2009– 

0646. 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or 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 

electronic 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and 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 Environmental Protection Agency, 

Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make at 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Cruise at (913) 551–7641, or by 

e-mail at cruise.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

On March 22, 2004, the EPA issued 

final regulations allowing RD&D permits 

to be issued at certain municipal solid 

waste landfills (69 FR 13242). This new 

provision may only be implemented by 

an approved State. While States are not 

required to seek approval for this new 

provision, those States that are 

interested in providing RD&D permits to 

municipal solid waste landfills must 

seek approval from EPA before issuing 

such permits. Kansas received final 

approval for 40 CFR part 258 provisions 

on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 32434). This 

request incorporates the November 27, 

1996, final rule (61 FR 60328) for 

financial assurance mechanisms for 

local governments; the July 29, 1997, 

final rule (62 FR 40708) for revisions to 

criteria for small municipal solid waste 

landfills; and the April 10, 1998, final 

rule (63 FR 17706) for financial test and 

corporate guarantee to financial 

assurance mechanisms. Approval 

procedures for new provisions of 40 

CFR part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR 

239.12. On December 11, 2008, Kansas 

submitted an application for approval of 

its RD&D permit provisions and update 

of the approved MSWLP program. 

B. Decision 

After a thorough review, EPA 

determined that Kansas’ RD&D permit 

provisions and its updated rules for its 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit 

Program, as defined under Kansas 

Statutes Annotated (KSA) Chapter 65— 

Public Health, Article 34—Solid Waste, 

Kansas Administrative Regulations 

(KAR), Agency 28—Kansas Department 

of Health and Environment, Article 29— 

Solid Waste Management are adequate 

to ensure compliance with the Federal 

criteria as defined at 40 CFR 258.4. 

C. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action approves State solid waste 

requirements pursuant to Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Section 4005 and imposes no Federal 

requirements. Therefore, this rule 

complies with applicable executive 

orders and statutory provisions as 

follows: 

1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning Review—The Office of 

Management and Budget has exempted 

this action from its review under 

Executive Order (EO) 12866; 

2. Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

action does not impose an information 

collection burden under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act; 

3. Regulatory Flexibility Act: After 

considering the economic impacts of 

today’s action on small entities under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES