[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5827-5829]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61438; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. Relating
To Amending Rule 1092, Obvious Errors and Catastrophic Errors

January 28, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on January 26, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``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 1092, Obvious Errors
and Catastrophic Errors, to adopt the ability to review transactions on
the Exchange's own motion.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1092
pertaining to the nullification and adjustment of options transactions.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a provision which provides
that in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for
the protection of investors, the President of the Exchange or his/her
designee who is an officer (collectively ``Exchange officer''), may, on
his or her own motion or upon request, determine to review any
transaction occurring on the Exchange that is believed to be
erroneous.\3\ A transaction reviewed pursuant to this provision may be
nullified or adjusted only if it is determined by the Exchange officer
that the transaction is an obvious error as provided in Rule 1092. A
transaction would be adjusted or nullified in accordance with the
provision under which it is deemed an erroneous transaction. The
Exchange officer may be assisted by an Options Exchange Official in
reviewing a transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the event a party to a transaction requests that the
Exchange review a transaction, the Exchange officer nonetheless
would need to determine, on his or her own motion, whether to review
the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange officer shall act pursuant to this paragraph as soon
as possible after receiving notification of the transaction, and
ordinarily would be expected to act on the same day as the transaction
occurred. However, because a transaction under review may have occurred
near the close of trading or due to unusual circumstances, the rule
provides that the Exchange officer shall act no later than 9:30 a.m.
(ET) on the next trading day following the date of the transaction in
question. A party affected by a determination to nullify or adjust a
transaction pursuant to this provision may appeal such determination in
accordance with Rule 1092; however, a determination by an Exchange
officer not to review a transaction, or a determination not to nullify
or adjust a transaction for which a review was requested or conducted,
is not appealable. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit
review on appeal to only those situations in which a transaction is
actually nullified or adjusted.
    This provision is not intended to replace a party's obligation to
request a review, within the required time periods under Rule 1092, of
any transaction that it believes meets the criteria for an obvious
error. And, if a transaction is reviewed and a determination has been
rendered pursuant to Rule 1092, no additional relief may be granted
under this new provision. Moreover, the Exchange does not anticipate
exercising this new authority in every situation in which a party fails
to make a timely request for review of this transaction pursuant to
Rule 1092. The Exchange believes this provision should help to protect
the integrity of its marketplace by vesting an Exchange officer with
the authority to review a transaction that may be erroneous, in those
situations where a party failed to make a timely request for a review.
    The Exchange believes that the provision would also be useful in
situations where some parties, but not all, to trades around the same
time have requested a review. Under the rule, reviews are currently
request-based. Under the proposal, in this situation, the Exchange
would be able to invoke this provision to review a series of trades,
whether or not all parties requested it.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ 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.
The Exchange notes that the Exchange officer can adjust or nullify a
transaction under the authority granted by this provision only if the
transaction meets the objective criteria for an obvious error under the
Exchange rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 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.

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 foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; or (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the Exchange may promptly implement the
proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that a recent trading
situation that resulted in divergent outcomes on some other options
markets could have been handled in a more clear and orderly way if the
new provision had been in place. The Commission notes that the proposed
rule change is substantively identical to a previously approved
proposal from CBOE \8\ and thus presents no new regulatory issues. The
Commission believes that, under the circumstances, it is appropriate
and consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
to waive the 30-day operative delay. Therefore, the Commission hereby
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 60978 (November 10, 2009), 74
FR 59296 (November 17, 2009) (approving SR-CBOE-2009-68).
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has 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 may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-Phlx-2010-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Phlx. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2010-13 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2335 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


1 SUPPORTING STATEMENT NESHAP FOR ORGANIC LIQUIDS DISTRIBUTION ( NON GASOLINE) FACILITIES ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE)

1. Identification of the Information Collection ( a) Identification of the Information Collection " NESHAP for Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE)." This is a new information collection request ( ICR) that has been assigned Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ICR number1963.02.

( b) Short Characterization This ICR is prepared for an EPA rulemaking developed under authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( Act). The final rule amends title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) by adding a new subpart EEEE NESHAP for Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities. The Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities NESHAP includes standards for major sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP).

Respondents are owners or operators of new or existing organic liquids distribution facilities( OLD) facilities subject to these national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP). In addition to the initial notification and notification of compliance status required by the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, respondents are required to submit one time reports of start of construction, anticipated and actual startup dates, and physical or operational changes to existing facilities. Reports of initial performance tests at organic liquids distribution storage tanks and transfer racks are also required and are necessary to show that the installed control devices are meeting the emission limitations required by the NESHAP. Annual reports of storage tank inspections at all affected facilities are required. In addition, respondents must submit semiannual startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports, semiannual compliance and continuous monitoring system performance reports, and semiannual reports of equipment leaks not repaired within 15 days or loadings of organic liquid cargo tanks for which vapor tightness documentation is not on file. All affected facilities must maintain records of the cargo tank vapor tightness test data on the facility premises. All records are to be maintained for at least 5 years. All reports are to be submitted to the respondent's State or local agency, whichever has been delegated enforcement authority by the EPA. The information is to be used to determine whether all sources subject to the NESHAP are achieving the standards. 2 In this case the number of respondents varies according to the task. The total number of Respondents is 381. While there are 12 new facilities per year, they replace 12 from the existing pool, so the base number is constant. Of the existing facilities, 64 have minimal tasks to do and are assigned a burden of 1 hour total, so that the annualized number of respondents per year actively engaged in the detection and correction of pollution problems is effectively ( 381  64 = 317). Within that number, sources have different equipment, so that not all tasks are appropriate for all sources, and the number of respondents varies somewhat across tasks.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection ( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Act ( Attachment 1), as amended, to establish NESHAP. Section 114 of the Act allows the Administrator to require inspections, monitoring, and entry into facilities to ensure compliance with a section 112 emission standard. Section 114( a)( 1) specifically states:

" The Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source ... who is subject to the provisions of this Act on a one time, periodic, or continuous basis to

( A) establish and maintain such records;

( B) make such reports;

( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods;

( D) sample such emissions;

( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical;

( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require."

Effective enforcement of this rule is necessary due to the hazardous nature of the HAP compounds found in the organic liquids stored, transferred, and distributed at OLD facilities. In total, this NESHAP will regulate 98 of the most toxic and volatile organic HAP compounds at OLD facilities ( listed in Table 1 of the NESHAP), including ( not a comprehensive listing):

Methanol

Benzene 3

Ethylbenzene

Toluene

Xylenes Certain records and reports are necessary: ( 1) to enable the EPA to identify new and existing sources subject to the standards, and ( 2) to assist the EPA and State agencies to which enforcement has been delegated in determining compliance with the standards.

( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information will be used by agency enforcement personnel to: ( 1) identify sources subject to the standards, ( 2) ensure that emissions due to leakage ( both liquid and vapor) from cargo tanks and process piping equipment components during transfer are being minimized, ( 3) ensure that emission control devices are being properly operated and maintained, and ( 4) ensure that emissions from storage tanks are minimized and rim seal and fitting defects are repaired on a timely basis.

In addition, records and reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may not be in compliance with the standards. Based on reported information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected and what records or specific emission sources should be inspected at each facility. Also, the records that facilities maintain provide an indication to the EPA as to whether facility personnel are operating and maintaining control equipment properly.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria ( a) Nonduplication Some of the facilities subject to this NESHAP will also be subject to requirements under 40 CFR part 60 new source performance standards ( NSPS), subparts K, Ka, Kb, VV, and XX. Some operations also occupy the same plant site as facilities complying with other NESHAP such as 40 CFR part 63, subparts G, H, and I ( collectively referred to as the HON), 40 CFR part 63, subpart R ( Gasoline Distribution NESHAP), and 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC ( the Refinery NESHAP). Some OLD facilities may also become subject to the requirements of future NESHAP. The burden requested for this NESHAP does not duplicate any of the burden accounted for under the mentioned NSPS or NESHAP subparts.

Certain reports required by State or local agencies may duplicate information required by these standards. In such cases, a copy of the report submitted to the State or local agency may be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the standards.

( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB A Federal Register notice was not published soliciting comments on burden estimates for this 4 ICR.

( c) Consultations The Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities NESHAP was developed with the help of industry stakeholders. Industry stakeholders were informed of the project's progress in four stakeholder meetings conducted in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Table 1 contains the names, affiliations, and phone numbers of stakeholders involved in the OLD rulemaking effort. These stakeholders were consulted during all phases of this NESHAP development.

Table 1. List of People Consulted in OLD NESHAP Development Name Organization Position Telephone W. R. ( Bill) Beck Mobil Oil Corporation Environmental, Health and Safety Issues Manager 703/ 849 6245 Mario Gamboa ACC Environmental Issues Manager 703/ 741 5238 Thomas J. Hmiel BASF Corporation Corporate Ecology and Safety Air Team Leader 973/ 426 1234 Usha Mehra ILTA/ GATX Terminals Corporation Environmental, Health and Safety Manager Gulf Region 713/ 450 0400 Denise Michelson Atlantic Richfield Corporation ( ARCO) Director, Corporate Policy and Reporting 213/ 486 0662 Bob Morehouse Exxon/ Mobile Chemical Environmental Associate 281/ 870 6524 Karin Ritter API Regulatory Affairs 202/ 682 8472 Tara Lanier Ashland Chemical Environmental, Health and Safety 614/ 790 3214 ( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The reporting requirements for facilities subject to the NESHAP consist of certain one time reports and a minimal amount of periodic recordkeeping and reporting. At new and existing OLD facilities, inspections and corresponding records and reports of the transfer racks and process piping equipment components are required ( storage tanks require annual and other inspections and associated records and reports). If this information were collected less frequently, the main consequence would be poor operation and maintenance of equipment components and storage tanks. Consequently, increased HAP emissions could result.

( e) General Guidelines The proposed rule requires records to be retained for 5 years, which is consistent with the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 and the part 70 operating permit requirements ( Title V). All of the 5 facilities affected by this NESHAP are required to obtain an operating permit ( with or without the issuance of this regulation). The 5 year retention requirement exceeds the 3 year retention period required by 5 CFR 1320.6; however, none of the other guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6 is being exceeded.

( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to Agency policies as set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR part 2; 40 FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

( g) Sensitive Questions This section is not applicable. Information to be collected has been determined to not be of a sensitive nature.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested ( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes Respondents are owners or operators of organic liquids storage/ handling and distribution facilities subject to the NESHAP. Table 2 below provides the primary SIC/ NAICS codes that apply to facilities that conduct OLD type operations.

Table 2. Affected Industry Segments and their Industry Classifications Industry Segment NAICS Codes SIC Codes Chemical Production 325211, 325192, 325188 2821, 2865, 2869 Petroleum Refineries 32411 2911 Liquid Terminals 49311, 49319 4226 Crude oil pipeline stations 48611 4612 Petroleum terminals 42269, 42271 5169, 5171 Organic liquids distribution activities may also occur at facilities with other SIC or NAICS codes not listed in the table above.

( b) Information Requested 6 ( i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements ( 1) Organic Liquids Storage and ( Non Gasoline) Facilities. The following types of one time reports are required for sources affected by this NESHAP.

For existing sources, a report filed within 1 year subsequent to the effective date of the NESHAP, notifying the Administrator that the facility is subject to the relevant standards ( Initial Notification). Information to be provided in the report is detailed in § 63.9( b)( 2) of subpart A, General Provisions.

For new sources [ for which approval of construction or reconstruction is not required under § 63.5( d)], an Initial Notification filed within 120 days after startup of the source, notifying the Administrator that the facility is subject to the relevant standards, as provided in § 63.9( b)( 3). Information to be provided in the report is detailed in § 63.9( b)( 2).

Notification of anticipated construction or reconstruction of a source subject to a relevant standard not later than 180 days prior to commencement of construction or reconstruction as indicated in § 63.9( b)( 5).

Notification of anticipated date of initial startup not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to such date [ § 63.9( b)( 4)( iv)].

Notification of the actual date of startup, within 15 days after such date [ § 63.9( b)( 4)( v)].

Notification of construction or reconstruction not later than 30 days after the change is commenced [ § 63.9( b)( 4)( iii)].

Notification of installation of a new control device or reconstruction of an existing control device within 180 days before the installation or reconstruction is planned to commence [ § 63.5( b)( 6) and § 63.5( d)( 1)].

Within 180 days after initial startup, installation of a control device, or refurbishment of an existing control device, the owner or operator of the facility must conduct a performance test and furnish the Administrator with a written report [ § 63.7( a)].

The owner or operator of an affected facility must notify the Administrator at least 60 days prior to the date of a performance test [ § 63.9( e)].

A request for an extension of compliance must be submitted if the owner or operator cannot comply with the standard by the designated date [ § 63.9( c)]. 7

The owner or operator must report any reconstruction of an affected facility as defined in § 63.5.

A Notification of Compliance Status must be submitted within 60 days after compliance of the affected facility has been established, pursuant to § 63.9( b)( 2).

( 2) The following periodic reports and record maintenance are required for the affected sources.

A semiannual compliance report is to be submitted which indicates any deviations from the standards and all facility responses to startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions that are consistent with the facility's plan [ § 63.2386( a)].

A startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be submitted within 7 days each time the facility's response to one of these occurrences is inconsistent with the plan [ § 63.2386( a)].

Records of annual and other inspections of storage tanks are to be kept as specified in § 63.2390( c).

Copies of all submitted notifications and reports, including performance test results and startup, shutdown, and malfunction records are to be maintained by the source in accordance with § 63.2390( a).

A continuous record of operating parameter monitoring data, as well as specific records to ensure that the monitoring activities will provide an indication of the facility's compliance, are to be kept pursuant to § 63.2390( b) and ( c).

Records required by this NESHAP must be retained by the owner or operator for 5 years in accordance with § 63.2394( b). This information and data will be viewed and analyzed by agency personnel during periodic visits, approximately once a year, to the respondents' OLD facilities.

5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management ( a) Agency Activities The EPA will conduct the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and ( Non Gasoline) of the information required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart " EEEE", NESHAP for Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities:

S Observe initial and repeat performance tests,

S Review notifications and reports, including compliance reports, required to be 8 submitted by industry,

S Audit facility records, and S Compile data in the AIRS database.

( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to verify that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to determine a source's initial capability to comply with the emission limitations, and to note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for internal Agency use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in these reports is entered into the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) Facility Subsystem ( AFS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. The AFS is the EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for over 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. The EPA uses AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters. The EPA can edit, store, retrieve, and analyze the data via PC terminals.

( c) Small Entity Flexibility Even though the recordkeeping requirements are the same for small and large businesses, the Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses. Construction, modification, and reconstruction reports take very little time to complete and are filed only once. Equipment leak monitoring and storage tank inspection records are brief, and cargo tank vapor tightness documentation will be supplied primarily by independent cargo tank operators and kept at the OLD facility for each tank truck and railcar that is to be loaded with regulated liquids at the facility.

( d) Collection Schedule Information contained in the one time only reports will be entered into the AIRS facility subsystem. Data obtained during periodic visits by Agency personnel from records maintained by the respondents and reports submitted by the respondents to the EPA will be tabulated and published for internal EPA use in compliance enforcement programs. A schedule for the collection of information and publication of data is not applicable because reports and recordkeeping are triggered by actions of the respondents. 9 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Tables 3 and 4 document the computation of individual burdens for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the respondents complying with this standard. The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified. Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden for OLD operations facilities over the next 3 years is estimated at 137,170 person hours, as indicated in Table 4. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, and Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program.

For the purposes of these estimates, a controlled organic liquids distribution facility is one that controls transfer rack loading activities and storage tanks, and that is carrying out an equipment leak detection and repair program. Cargo tanks that are presently required to have the annual vapor tightness tests required by the NESHAP are classified as currently tested. The number of facilities estimated to be constructed/ reconstructed or modified was based on industry growth projections.

( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating labor costs The primary costs of complying with the information collection activity are associated with labor costs. The labor estimates used in Tables 3 and 4 were derived from standard estimates based on the EPA's experience with other standards. The costs to conduct this effort have been calculated on the basis of:

$ 61.66 per hour for Technical Labor $ 89.94 per hour for Managerial Labor $ 38.39 per hour for Clerical Labor These labor rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2002, Table 10. Private Industry by occupation and industry group. These labor rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Capital/ Start Up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital costs would be associated with the cost of developing a data base capable of handling the 10 recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the NESHAP. It was conservatively estimated that it would cost approximately $ 2,500 to develop this data base.

Emissions testing costs were estimated for Method 18, Method 25A, Method 27, and Method 311 and were assumed to account for O& M costs associated with this NESHAP. Methods 18 and 25A will be used to measure emissions of affected HAP from control devices. The cost of Method 18 and 25A testing was provided by the emissions testing staff at PES, Inc. Method 27 is used to test cargo tanks for vapor tightness ( leakage). Based upon current information provided by industry, the cost of performing a Method 27 test has been estimated to be $ 200. Method 311 would only be used to determine the percentage of affected HAP in organic liquids. As such, this requires that a sample of the organic liquid be run through a gas chromatograph for analysis, and this is a fairly rapid and inexpensive procedure.

( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the operation of the AFS. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The annual Federal Government cost during the first 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 860,653, as shown in Table 6. Labor rates used in estimating the annual cost are as follows:

$ 46.96 per hour for Technical Labor $ 65.28 per hour for Managerial Labor $ 22.26 per hour for Clerical Labor These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) 2003 General Schedule, which excludes locality rates of pay. The rates on the table were multiplied by 1.6 to take benefits into account.

( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to the NESHAP for Organic Liquids Distribution ( Non Gasoline) Facilities, 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEEE is 381. Within the primary industry segments in the OLD source category, it is estimated that there are the following numbers of major source facilities that conduct OLD operations:

184 SOCMI facilities 95 Petroleum refineries 57 For hire organic liquids storage terminals 16 Crude oil pipeline breakout stations 29 Bulk petroleum terminals 11 381 Total facilities It is estimated that approximately 3 percent of the industry may construct or reconstruct facilities in a given year. This results in there being approximately 12 cases where facilities are either constructed or reconstructed ( 381 x 0.03 = 11.4, rounded up to 12) on an annual basis. The same number of facilities close or are no longer subject to the standard each year. ( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables ( i) Respondent tally See Table 4.

( ii) The agency tally See Table 6.

( iii) Variations in the annual bottom line Not applicable as this is a new ICR.

( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Not applicable as this is a new ICR.

( g) Burden Statement The average annual burden estimates are presented in Tables 3 through 6. For organic liquids distribution facilities, the average annual burden per facility is approximately 360 hours. This estimate includes time for preparing and submitting notices, preparing and submitting demonstrations and applications, reporting releases, gathering information, and preparing and submitting reports.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 12 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0138, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa/ gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OAR 2003 0138) in any correspondence. 13 Table 3. Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Burden Item ( A) Tech Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Technical Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents per Year Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per Year @

$ 89.94/ hr Clerical hours @

$ 38.39/ hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Costs per Year ($) Total O& M Costs per Year ($)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read and Understand Rule Requirements 40 1 40 317 a b 12,680 634 1,268 887,549 1 1 1 64 64 3 6 4,480 B. Required Activities: 0 0 0 0 3.1 Organic Liquids 0 0 0 0 ( a). Provide true vapor pressure and percent Table 1 HAP of all organic liquids transferred into/ out of facility. 10 1 10 317 b 3,170 159 317 221,887 ( b). Determine and provide Table 1 HAP percentages in organic liquids using Method 311. 1 15 $ 500 15 83 h 1,245 62 125 87,145 3.2 Storage Tanks 0 0 0 0 ( a). Provide a list of all tanks in OLD operation including their capacity, HAP vapor pressure for tanks less than 50,000 gallons, roof type, primary and secondary seal types, and fittings 20 1 20 317 a b 6,340 317 634 443,775 ( b). Provide results of the required inspections for storage tanks. 15 1 15 317 b 4,755 238 476 332,831 14 Table 3. ( Continued)

Burden Item ( A) Tech Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents per Year Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per Year @

$ 89.94/ hr Clerical Hours@

$ 38.39/

hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Costs per Year ($) Total O& M Costs per Year ($)

3.3 Transfer Operations ( a). Provide documentation of the facilitywide volume of affected liquids transferred through loading racks and the HAP percentage of affected liquids transferred through each rack. 20 2 40 188 b 7,520 376 752 526,370 ( b). Provide documentation that cargo tanks subject to Method 27 vapor tightness testing loading at affected loading positions have current vapor tightness certification. 15 1 $ 200 15 188 b 2,820 141 282 197,389 3.4 Equipment Leaks 0 ( a). Provide a list of all equipment in OLD service. 20 1 20 181 a c 3,620 181 362 253,386 ( b). Provide documentation detailing equipment found leaking using Method 21 was repaired in time required. 10 4 $ 2,500 40 302 c 12,080 604 1,208 845,552 3.5 Control Devices 0 ( a). Provide records of control devices in OLD service and the emission sources which they control. 10 1 10 96 a b 960 48 96 67,196 ( b). Provide records detailing deviations in the proper operating conditions of the control device( s) in OLD service. 5 1 5 96 d 480 24 48 33,598 ( c). Provide records of all performance tests required for the control devices. 24 1 24 96 d 2,304 115 230 161,271 Table 3. ( Continued) 15 Burden Item ( A) Tech. Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per Year @

$ 89.94/ hr Clerical Hours@

$ 38.39/

hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Cost per Year ($) Total O& M Cost per Year ($)

( d). Performance test of control devices, Method 25A. 24 1 $ 12,000 24 96 d 2,304 115 230 1,313,271 3.6 Repeat of Performance Test Method 18 Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas Chromatography 5 1 $ 500 5 15 efg 75 4 8 12,750 Method 25A Determination of Gaseous TOC by Flame Ionization Detection 24 1 $ 12,000 24 15 efg 360 18 36 205,199 Method 27 Determination of Vapor Tightness Test for Gasoline Delivery Tanks 2 1 $ 200 2 15 o 30 2 3 5,100 C. Create Information Incl. in 3. B D. Gather Information Incl. in 3. B E. Report Preparation Initial Notification Report 16 1 16 317 ab 5,072 254 507 355,020 Initial Compliance Report 20 1 20 317 ab 6,340 317 634 443,775 Semiannual Compliance Report 40 2 80 317 e 25,360 1,268 2,536 1,775,099 Notification of Performance Test 4 1 4 317 e 1,268 63 127 88,755 Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 4 1 4 12 ai 48 2 5 3,360 16 Table 3. ( Continued)

Burden Item ( A) Tech.

Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents per Year Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per year @

$ 89.94/

hr Clerical Hours@

$ 38.39/

hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Cost per Year ($) Total O& M Cost per Year ($)

Notification of anticipated startup 4 1 4 12 ai 48 2 5 3,347 Notification of actual startup 4 1 4 12 ai 48 2 5 3,347 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Incl. in 3. A B. Plan Activities Incl. in 3. A C. Implement Activities Incl. in 3. A D. Develop Record System 317 k 264,167 E. Record Information 4.1 Organic Liquids ( a). Maintain records of true vapor pressure of organic liquids. Incl. in 3.1( a)

( b). Maintain records of Table 1 HAP in organic liquids. Incl. in 3.1( a), ( b) 17 Table 3. ( Continued)

Burden Item ( A) Tech.

Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents per Year Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per Year @

$ 89.94/

hr Clerical Hours @

$ 38.39/

hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Cost per Year ($) Total O& M Cost per Year ($)

4.2 Storage Tanks ( a). Maintain records of all storage tanks in OLD service, their dimensions, roof types,

seal types, and fittings. Incl. in 3.2( a)

( b). Maintain records of organic liquids and their respective volumes stored in individual storage tanks. Incl. in 3.2( a)

( c). Maintain records of storage tank inspections and repairs. Incl. in 3.2( b)

4.3 Liquid Transfers ( a). Maintain records of the organic liquids and their respective volumes transferred through each loading arm. Incl. in 3.3( a)

( b). Maintain records of cargo tanks and their vapor tightness certification. Incl. in 3.3( b)

4.4 Equipment Leaks ( a). Maintain records of equipment associated with organic liquids distribution. Incl. in 3.4( a)

( b). Maintain records of periodic Method 21 inspections, including leaking equipment found, and time required to repair leaking equipment. Incl. in 3.4( b) 18 Table 3. ( Concluded)

Burden Item ( A) Tech. Hrs per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences per Respondent per Year Emissions Testing Cost per Occurrence ( C) Hours per Respondent ( C= AxB) Number of Respondents per Year Technical Hours per Year @

$ 61.66/ hr Manag.

Hours per Year @

$ 89.94/ hr Clerical Hours @

$ 38.39/

hr Total Labor Cost per Year ($) Total Capital Cost per Year ($) Total O& M Cost per Year ($)

4.5 Control Devices ( a). Maintain records describing the control devices used to comply with the NESHAP, and what emission sources they control. Incl. in 3.5( a)

( b). Maintain records of performance tests. Incl. in 3.5( b)

( c). Record startups, shutdowns,

and malfunctions ( deviations). 4 12 48 317 b 15,216 761 1,522 1,064,989 G. Personnel Training N/ A H. Time for Audits 8 2 16 317 b 5,072 254 507 354,996 Totals: 119,279 5,963 11,928 8,348,971 264,167 1,536,320 Key to Table 3:

a) One time activity.

b) Estimate includes all affected facilities.

c) Estimate does not include facilities that already operate an LDAR program.

d) Only includes facilities incurring costs for a new control device as a result of the OLD NESHAP.

e) Estimate includes test plan, test report, and parametric monitoring setup.

f) Assumed that 15 percent of all performance tests fail and need to be repeated.

g) Assumed that this method will only be used to determine the percent HAP in organic liquids.

h) Assumed that only for hire terminals and bulk gasoline terminals will require Method 18 testing of organic liquids. 19 i) Assumed that 3 percent of total facilities would be subject to construction/ reconstruction/ anticipated startup/ actual startup provision.

j) Assumed that ½ percent of the approximately 15,000 tank trucks carrying organic liquids would undergo Method 27 testing on an annual basis.

k) Estimate based on a per facility capital cost of $ 2,500 to develop a database used for purposes of recordkeeping and reporting. 20 Table 4. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary Number of Respondents Number of Activities per Respondent Average Annual Hoursa Total Hours per Facility per Yearb Total Labor Cost per Yearc Total Annual Capital Costd Total Annual O& M Costse 381 59 137,170 360 $ 8,348,971 $ 264,167 $ 1,536,320 Key to Table 4:

a) Estimated by taking the average of initial vs. annual technical, managerial, and clerical hours.

b) Obtained by dividing total hours per year by the number of respondents.

c) Includes technical, managerial, and clerical hours.

d) Includes the cost of developing an OLD specific data base for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The cost for each data base is $ 2,500.

Multiplied by 381 respondents, the total across 3 years is $ 792,500. Dividing that sum by 3 yields an annualized cost per year of $ 264,167.

e) Includes the cost of performance testing. 21 Table 5. Annual Federal Government Burden and Costs Burden Item Number of Activities per Year EPA Hours per Activity Technical Hours per Year @

$ 46.96/ hr Management Hours per Year @

$ 65.28/ hr Clerical Hours per Year @

$ 22.26/ hr EPA Cost per Year ($/ yr)

1. Applications N/ A 2. Surveys and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read and Understand Rule Requirements 1 40 40 2 4 2,098 B. Required Activities 0 3.1 Organic Liquids 0 ( a). Review documentation of organic liquids,

their vapor pressure, and percent of regulated HAP. 317 a 6 1,902 95 190 99,760 3.2 Storage Tanks 0 ( a). Review documentation of storage tanks, their roof types, etc. 317 a 8 2,536 127 254 133,013 ( b). Review documentation of the required storage tank inspections. 317 a 4 1,268 63 127 66,507 3.3 Transfer Operations 0 ( a). Review documentation of the organic liquids transferred, their volumes, TVP, and HAP percentages. 188 b 4 752 38 75 39,442 22 Table 5. ( Continued)

Burden Item Number of Activities per Year EPA Hours per Activity Technical Hours per Year @

$ 46.96/ hr Management Hours per Year @

$ 65.28/ hr Clerical Hours per Year @

$ 22.26/ hr EPA Cost per Year ($/ yr)

( b). Review documentation of vapor tightness testing on cargo tanks 188 db 4 752 38 75 39,442 3.4 Equipment Leaks 0 ( a). Review report of equipment leak program 181 c 8 1,448 72 145 75,948 ( b). Review report of equipment leak repairs 181 c 4 724 36 72 37,974 ( c). Review Method 21 documentation 181 c 4 724 36 72 37,974 3.5 Control Devices 0 ( a). Review control devices in OLD service 317 a 4 1,268 63 127 66,507 ( b). Review records of deviations 96 d 4 384 19 38 20,141 ( c). Review control device performance test results 96 d 4 384 19 38 20,141 C. Create Information N/ A 0 D. Gather Information N/ A 0 E. Report Preparation N/ A 0 Review Initial Notification Report 317 a 4 1,268 63 127 66,507 23 Table 5. ( Concluded)

Burden Item Number of Activities per Year EPA Hours per Activity Technical Hours per Year @

$ 46.96/ hr Management Hours per Year @

$ 65.28/ hr Clerical Hours per Year @

$ 22.26/ hr EPA Cost per Year ($/ yr)

Review Initial Compliance Report 317 a 4 1,268 63 127 66,507 Review Semi annual Compliance Report 634 a 2 1,268 63 127 66,507 Review Notification of Performance Test 317 a 2 634 32 63 33,253 Review Notification of Construction/

Reconstruction 12 e 2 24 1 2 1,259 Review Notification of Anticipated Startup 12 e 2 24 1 2 1,259 Review Notification of Actual Startup 12 e 2 24 1 2 1,259 4. Recordkeeping Requirements 0 A. Read Instructions N/ A 0 B. Plan Activities N/ A 0 C. Implement Activities N/ A 0 D. Develop Record System 317 a 0 E. Record Information N/ A 0 F. Personnel Training N/ A 0 G. Time for Auditors N/ A 0 H. Litigation N/ A 0 Totals: 16,375 835 1,670 860,653 24 Key to Table 5:

a) Estimate includes all affected facilities. b) Estimate does not include crude oil pipeline breakout stations. c) Estimate does not include facilities that already operate an LDAR program. d) Only includes facilities incurring costs for a new control device as a result of the OLD NESHAP. e) Estimate that only 3 percent of facilities will undergo construction/ reconstruction, anticipated startup, actual startup.

Table 6. Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary 25 Number of Industry Respondents Number of Agency Activitiesa Average Annual Hoursb Average Hours per Industry Respondent Total Annual Labor Costb 381 20 18,880 50 $ 860,653 Key to Table 6:

aNumber of different types of activities that must be conducted by EPA or permitting authority. bIncludes technical, managerial, and clerical hours.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21977-21978]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08654]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of reestablishment of the MACOSH charter.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2), and after
consultation with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of
Labor is reestablishing the charter for the Maritime Advisory Committee
for Occupational Safety and Health. The Committee will better enable
OSHA to perform its duties under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(the OSH Act) of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656). Authority to establish this
Committee is at Sections 6(b)(1) and 7(b) of the OSH Act, Section 41 of
the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941),
Secretary of Labor's Order

1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR Part 1912. The Committee
is diverse and balanced, both in terms of segments of the maritime
industry represented (e.g., shipyard employment, longshoring, and
marine terminal industries), and in the views and interests represented
by the members.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Wangdahl, Director, Office of
Maritime and Agriculture, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will advise OSHA on matters
relevant to the safety and health of employees in the maritime
industry. This includes advice on maritime issues that will result in
more effective enforcement, training, and outreach programs, and
streamlined regulatory efforts. The maritime industry includes shipyard
employment, longshoring, marine terminal and other related industries,
e.g., commercial fishing and shipbreaking. The Committee will function
solely as an advisory body in compliance with the provisions of FACA
and OSHA's regulations covering advisory committees (29 CFR Part 1912).

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this notice pursuant to Sections 6(b)(1), and 7(b) of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1),
656(b)), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), Section
41 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C.
941), Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012),
and 29 CFR Part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 9, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-08654 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


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

General Comment:Not All Generic Concerta Is Created Equal:  Comparison of OROS Versus Non-OROS for the treatment of ADHD.


State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD Resolution 04 16 May 20, 2004 Agenda Item No.: 04 5 4 WHEREAS, sections 39002 and 39003 of the Health and Safety Code charge the Air Resources Board ( ARB or the Board) with the responsibility for systematically attacking the serious air pollution problem caused by motor vehicles;

WHEREAS, sections 39600 and 39601 of the Health and Safety Code authorize the Board to adopt standards, rules and regulations and to do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties granted to and imposed upon the Board by law;

WHEREAS, section 39515 of the Health and Safety Code provide that the Board may delegate any duty to the Executive Officer which the Board deems appropriate and that any power, duty, purpose, function, or jurisdiction which the Board may lawfully delegate shall be conclusively presumed to have been delegated to the Executive Officer unless the Board has expressly reserved such authority onto itself;

WHEREAS, in sections 43000 and 43000.5( a) of the Health and Safety Code, the Legislature declared that the emission of air pollutants from motor vehicles is the primary cause of air pollution in many parts of the state and that despite significant reductions in vehicle emissions in recent years, continued growth in population and vehicle miles traveled throughout California have the potential not only to prevent attainment of the state standards, but in some cases, to result in worsening air quality;

WHEREAS, section 43000.5( c) of the Health and Safety Code provides that the burden for achieving needed reductions in vehicle emissions should be distributed equitably among various classes of vehicles, including heavy duty vehicles to accomplish improvements in both the emissions level and in use performance and durability of all new motor vehicles;

WHEREAS, section 43806 of the Health and Safety Code directs the Board to adopt emission standards and procedures applicable to new engines used in publicly owned and privately owned public transit buses;

WHEREAS, section 43013 of the Health and Safety Code authorizes the Board to adopt motor vehicle emission standards and in use performance standards that it finds to be necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible; Resolution 04 16 2 WHEREAS, section 43018( a) of the Health and Safety Code directs the Board to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to accomplish the attainment of state standards at the earliest practicable date;

WHEREAS, section 43018( c) of the Health and Safety Code further directs the Board that in carrying out the directives of section 43018( a), the Board shall adopt standards and regulations which will result in the most cost effective combination of control measures on all classes of motor vehicles, including but not limited to, reductions in exhaust and evaporative emissions and reductions in in use emissions through improvements in motor vehicle emission system durability and performance;

WHEREAS, section 43101 of the Health and Safety Code directs the Board to adopt and implement emission standards for new motor vehicles for the control of emissions therefrom that are necessary and technologically feasible;

WHEREAS, section 43102 of the Health and Safety Code provides that the Board shall not certify a new motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine unless the vehicle or engine meets the emission standards adopted by the ARB pursuant to Part 5 of the Health and Safety Code under test procedures adopted pursuant to section 43104;

WHEREAS, section 43104 of the Health and Safety Code provides that the Board shall adopt test procedures and any other procedures necessary to certify that new motor vehicles and engines are in compliance with the emissions standards established under Part 5 of the Health and Safety Code;

WHEREAS, section 43105 of the Health and Safety Code provides that no new motor vehicle or engine required under Part 5 of the Health and Safety Code to meet emission standards shall be sold to the ultimate purchaser, ordered or delivered for sale to the ultimate purchaser, or registered in this state if the manufacturer has violated emission standards or test procedures and has failed to take corrective action, which may include recall of vehicles or engines, specified by the Board in accordance with its regulations; WHEREAS, sections 43016, 43154, 43211, and 43212 of the Health and Safety Code provide that penalties may be assessed against motor vehicle manufacturers for noncompliance with ARB emission standards, other certification requirements, or other rules and regulations of the Board;

WHEREAS, the Board has adopted and the Office of Administrative Law subsequently has approved regulations regarding malfunction and diagnostic system requirements ( OBD II) that were first implemented in the 1994 model year for passenger cars, light duty trucks, and medium duty vehicles and engines; Resolution 04 16 3 WHEREAS, in 2001 and 2002, the Board adopted more stringent tailpipe emission standards for 2007 and subsequent heavy duty diesel engines and 2008 and subsequent heavy duty Otto cycle engines, respectively;

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), section 21080.5 of the Public Resources Code and Board regulations at title 17, California Code of Regulations ( CCR), section 60006 require that no project which may have significant adverse environmental impacts may be adopted as originally proposed if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to reduce or eliminate such impacts;

WHEREAS, pursuant to section 43101 of the Health and Safety Code and section 11346.3 of the Government Code, the Board has considered and assessed the effects of the regulation on the economy of the state;

WHEREAS, the staff has now proposed adoption of title 13, CCR, section 1971 that would establish engine manufacturer diagnostic system ( EMD) requirements for 2007 and subsequent model year heavy duty engines;

WHEREAS, a public hearing and other administrative proceedings have been held in accordance with the provisions of chapter 3.5 ( commencing with section 11340), part 1, division 3, title 2 of the Government Code to consider the proposed adoption of section 1971, title 13, CCR;

WHEREAS, the Board finds regarding the adoption of section 1971 of title 13, CCR, that:

Since the introduction of 1996 model year light duty and medium duty motor vehicles and engines, manufacturers have incorporated OBD II systems into nearly all of their light duty and medium duty vehicle models and engines pursuant to the standards and other requirements of title 13, CCR, sections 1968.1 and 1968.2;

Emissions from heavy duty trucks, especially Oxides of Nitrogen ( NOx) and Particulate Matter ( PM) emissions released from diesel trucks, are of great concern;

NOx is a precursor to ozone and causes lung irritation, and diesel PM is carcinogenic and has been identified as a toxic air contaminant;

Particulate filters are expected to be universally used on heavy duty diesel engines by the 2007 model year; Resolution 04 16 4 In an effort to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards and comply with the federally mandated State Implementation Plan ( SIP) to meet those standards, California has continued in the forefront in adopting the most stringent motor vehicle emission control program in the nation;

The recently revised SIP includes a SIP Commitment Measure On Road Heavy Duty   3 to complement the new emission standards for heavy duty diesel engines and to achieve reductions of in use emissions from on road heavy duty diesel vehicles;

Adopting diagnostic requirements for heavy duty vehicles is an essential first step towards monitoring heavy duty vehicle emission control systems and meeting the state's obligations to reduce emissions from on road heavy duty vehicles;

To assure compliance with increasingly stringent emission standards that are required for future heavy duty engines and to better serve repair technicians, it is necessary that engines certified to those standards be equipped with diagnostic systems that monitor the emission control system;

To assure sufficient leadtime and to complement the more stringent 2007 emission standards, section 1971 of title 13, CCR, would apply to 2007 and subsequent model year on road heavy duty engines and vehicles produced for sale in California with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than 14,000 pounds;

Section 1971 of title 13, CCR, would be referred to as the EMD regulation, and would build on the basic engine diagnostic system heavy duty engine manufacturers are currently using to provide diagnostic capability for the most important emission control systems;

Monitoring of the major emission control systems, specifically the fuel system, exhaust gas recirculation system, PM trap, and emission related electronic components, is needed to help ensure that heavy duty engines that have been certified to the more stringent emission standards perform at or near such levels in use;

To ensure that a malfunction of any of these systems/ components is promptly fixed, the EMD regulation would require the EMD system to alert the vehicle operator to the problem by illuminating a warning light and to output diagnostic information for use by repair technicians; and Resolution 04 16 5 The requirements of title 13, CCR, section 1971 are necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible to carry out the purposes of the California Clean Air Act; and WHEREAS, the Board further finds regarding the adoption of section 1971 of title 13, CCR that:

With respect to the requirements of CEQA, section 1971, title 13, CCR, would not adversely impact the environment but would help guarantee that engines initially certified to low emission standards maintain such emission levels throughout their lives; by doing so, the regulation would help in the attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide;

Having identified that the regulation should not adversely affect the environment, but rather help ensure that measurable emission benefits are achieved statewide, section 1971, title 13, CCR, should not adversely impact any community in the State, especially low income or minority communities;

The economic and cost impacts of title 13, CCR, section 1971 have been analyzed as required by California law, and the conclusions and supporting documentation for this analysis are set forth in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for this regulatory action;

The reporting requirements of title 13, CCR, section 1971 applicable to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State;

No alternative considered by the ARB, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the ARB, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose of the regulation or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the regulation;

Though there is currently no federal regulation requiring diagnostic systems on vehicles and engines above 14,000 pounds ( i. e., no federal requirements similar to the requirements of title 13, CCR, section 1971), the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) has indicated its intent to develop a federal program in the near future that would harmonize with the California program and that would use the California program as a template; and Resolution 04 16 6 The California EMD regulation is justified in that state law authorizes it and the cost of the regulation is justified by the benefit to human health, public safety, public welfare, or the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves section 1971, title 13, CCR as set forth in Attachments A and B hereto and such other conforming modifications as may be appropriate;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board directs the Executive Officer to adopt section 1971, title 13, CCR, after making the modified regulatory language and any additional supporting documents and information available for public comment for a period of 15 days, provided that the Executive Officer shall consider such written comments regarding the modifications and additional supporting documents and information as may be submitted during this period, shall make modifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, and shall present the regulations to the Board for further consideration if he or she determines that this is warranted.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, with the adoption of title 13, CCR, section 1971, the Board hereby determines that pursuant to section 209( b) of the Clean Air Act the State's standards would, in the aggregate, be at least as protective of the public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, that California needs its own state mobile source program to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and that the adopted standards and procedures are not inconsistent with section 202( a) of the Clean Air Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Officer shall, upon adoption, forward the regulations to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency with a request for a waiver of federal preemption pursuant to section 209( b) of the Clean Air Act.

I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of Resolution 04 16, as adopted by the Air Resources Board.

_______________________________ Lori Andreoni, Clerk of the Board Resolution 04 16 7 Resolution 04 16 May 20 21, 2004 Identification of Attachment to the Resolution Attachment A: Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy Duty Engines, Section 1971, Title 13, California Code Regulations Attachment B: Staff's Suggested Modifications to Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy Duty Engines, Section 1971, Title 13, California Code Regulations


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52049-52050]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC); Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC) public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the NAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 31, 2018, starting at 8:30
a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by October 16,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at The MITRE Corporation,
Building 1, MITRE 1 Conference Center, 7525 Colshire Dr., Tysons, VA
22102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Schwab, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the NAC taking place on October 31, 2018.

The Draft Agenda Includes

1. Official Statement of Designated Federal Official
2. NAC Chairman's Report
a. June 27, 2018 Meeting Summary [Approval]
3. FAA Report
4. Working Group Updates
a. NextGen Priorities Joint Implementation Rolling Plan Recommendation
[Approval]
5. Any Other Business

    The agenda will be published on the FAA Meeting web page (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/nac/) once it is
finalized.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance by email to
Solutions.com">[email protected]Solutions.com no later than October 16, 2018.
Please provide the following information: Full legal name, country of
citizenship, and name of your industry association, or applicable
affiliation. For Foreign National attendees, please also provide your
country of citizenship, date of birth, and passport or diplomatic
identification number with expiration date.
    Upon arrival at the MITRE 1 Conference Center, all attendees must
show photo identification that match the pre-registration name,
specifically, government-issued photo identification (e.g., U.S.
driver's license; passport for non-U.S. citizens; federal government
identification card). Directions to MITRE 1 may be found at the
following link: https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/mclean-campus-map.pdf.
    With the approval of the NAC Chairman, members of the public may
present oral statements at the meeting. The public must arrange by
October 16, 2018, to present oral statements at the meeting.
Additionally, if the statement pertains to the topic of the meeting and
is approved, there will be a time limit of 2 minutes in order to
accommodate other speakers and a full agenda. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2018.
Tiffany Ottilia McCoy,
NextGen Office of Collaboration and Messaging, ANG-M, Office of the
Assistant Administrator for NextGen, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-22334 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 168)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50723-50726]
[DOCID:fr28au08-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0027; FRL-8708-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware. This SIP revision establishes
limits on the emissions of nitrogen oxides
    (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
Delaware's large electric generating units (EGUs). EPA is approving
this SIP revision in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 29,
2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0027. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection 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 the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89
Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 17, 2007 (72 FR 27787), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR proposed approval
of Regulation No. 1146--Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant
Regulation. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Delaware on
November 16, 2006.

II. Summary

    Regulation No. 1146 establishes limits on the emissions of
NOX and SO2 from Delaware's large EGUs. The large
EGUs subject to this regulation are Connective Delmarva Generating,
Inc.'s Edge Moor Generating Station Units 3, 4 and 5; City of Dover's
McKee Run Generating Unit 3; and NRG Energy, Inc.'s Indian Generating
Station Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. Other specific requirements of Regulation
No. 1146 and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in
the NPR and will not be restated here. On June 18, 2007, EPA received
comments on its May 17, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted
and EPA's response is provided in Section III of this document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: The commenter opposes the approval of Regulation No. 1146
since it may be changed or invalidated in the current pending appeals
process.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Regulation No. 1146 was
appealed by three regulated entities: City of Dover's McKee Run
Generating Station; NRG Energy Inc. (NRG); and Connectiv Delmarva
Generating Station (Connective). The City of Dover and NRG appeals have
been settled, and only Connective remains. Currently, Regulation No.
1146 is in effect and enforceable in Delaware, and at this time, all
covered units, including Connectiv units are in the process of
designing and installing emission control equipment to meet the
requirements of Regulation No. 1146.

    Comment: The commenter states that the SIP should not include
requirements of Regulation No. 1146 that are not necessary for
attaining compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard. The following are
not elements of DNREC's plan to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard: (1) Annual NOX emissions caps, and (2) annual
SO2 emissions caps and emission rate limitations.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the premise of this comment. The
reductions associated with Regulation No. 1146, including the annual
NOX caps and the annual SO2 caps and emission
rate limitations, will support the attainment of the 8-hour ozone and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The emissions
reductions also provide necessary support for the 8-hour ozone
reasonable further progress plan. Meeting these goals will help clean
Delaware's air. In understanding EPA's role with regard to review and
approval or disapproval of rules submitted by states as SIP revisions,
EPA can only take action upon the final adopted versions of a state's
regulation as submitted by that state in its SIP revision request, and
must approve a SIP that meets the minimum requirements of the CAA. It
is not within EPA's authority, by its rulemaking on the SIP revision or
otherwise, to change or modify the text or substantive requirements of
a state regulation. Therefore, EPA cannot modify Delaware's regulation
as recommended in the comment.
    Comment: The commenter states that Regulation No. 1146 overwrites
the carefully-balanced provisions of the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). The units covered by Regulation No. 1146 are subject to CAIR
and have already been allocated annual and ozone season NOX
allowances under the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
Delaware. Regulation No. 1146 imposes inconsistent NOX and
SO2 emission requirements on these same units. Requirements
to comply with these additional state regulations are unnecessary and
unduly burdensome for affected owners.
    Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Regulation No. 1146 is
not intended to replace the Federal CAIR requirements and does not
relieve affected sources from participating in and complying with any
CAIR cap-and-trade program requirements. The recent decision by the
District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA, No. 05-1244 (July 11, 2008), when final, would vacate CAIR. If
CAIR is eventually vacated pursuant to the Court decision, the
commenter's concern will no longer exist. However, even if CAIR remains
in effect, a State may establish and may be required to establish
requirements, including requirements for units covered by CAIR, to
address local nonattainment problems. CAIR addresses the state's
section 110(a)(2)(D) obligation to eliminate significant contribution
to downwind nonattainment on the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In addition to meeting their 110(a)(2)(D) obligations, states
are obliged to adopt such additional SIP provisions as are necessary to
address NAAQS nonattainment within their own borders. In addition, they
retain authority under section 116 of the CAA to adopt regulations more
stringent than federal minimum requirements. The commenter has not
identified, and indeed could not identify, any requirement of CAIR that
prohibits states from adopting such emission reduction requirements or
emission caps. For these reasons, Regulation No. 1146, thus, is not
inconsistent with CAIR and the commenter's conclusions are incorrect,
because, although more stringent than CAIR, it is intended to address
such local contributions to nonattainment areas. EPA therefore
concludes that Regulation No. 1146 is approvable whether or not CAIR is
eventually vacated.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving Delaware's EGU Multi-Pollutant Regulation as a
revision to Delaware SIP that was submitted on November 16, 2006
pertaining to NOX and SO2. This regulation will
result in the reduction of NOX and SO2 emissions
from the affected sources.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For 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);
     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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2008. 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 Delaware's EGU Multi-Pollutant
Regulation, 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding
entries for Regulation No. 1146--Electric Generating Unit Multi-
Pollutant Regulation at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Delaware SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  State effective                                Additional
        State citation           Title/subject          date          EPA approval date         explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Regulation                       Electric Generating Unit (EGU) Multi-Pollutant Regulation
           No. 1146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1.0..................  Preamble........           12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                                                     number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Section 2.0..................  Applicability...           12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                                                     number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Section 3.0..................  Definitions.....           12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                                                     number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Section 4.0..................  NOX Emissions              12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  .....................
                                Limitations.                         number where the
                                                                     document begins].
Section 5.0..................  SO2 Emissions              12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  .....................
                                Limitations.                         number where the
                                                                     document begins].
Section 7.0..................  Recordkeeping              12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                and Reporting.                       number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Section 8.0..................  Compliance Plan.           12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                                                     number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Section 9.0..................  Penalties.......           12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  Except for provisions
                                                                     number where the       pertaining to
                                                                     document begins].      mercury emissions.
Table I......................  Annual NOX Mass            12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  .....................
                                Emissions                            number where the
                                Limits.                              document begins].
Table II.....................  Annual SO2 Mass            12/11/06  08/28/08 [Insert page  .....................
                                Emissions                            number where the
                                Limits.                              document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-19765 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P