[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41075-41086]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17463]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179; FRL-9436-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Indiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Ohio; Wisconsin; Infrastructure
SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve elements of submissions
by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
regarding the

infrastructure requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 eight-hour ground level ozone national
ambient air quality standards (1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) and 1997 fine
particle national ambient air quality standards (1997 PM2.5
NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. The
proposed rulemaking was published on April 28, 2011. During the comment
period, which ended on May 31, 2011, EPA received three comment letters
raising a number of concerns, which will be addressed in this final
action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, 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 at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is the scope of this final rulemaking?
III. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    This final rulemaking addresses state submittals from each state
(and appropriate state agency) in EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM); Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ);
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (Ohio EPA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources Bureau of Air Management (WDNR). At the time of our proposed
rulemaking, each state had made submittals on the following dates:
Illinois--December 12, 2007; Indiana--December 7, 2007, and
supplemented on September 19, 2008, March 23, 2011, and April 7, 2011;
Michigan--December 6, 2007, and supplemented on September 19, 2008 and
April 6, 2011; Minnesota--November 29, 2007; Ohio--December 5, 2007,
and supplemented on April 7, 2011; and, Wisconsin--December 12, 2007,
and supplemented on January 24, 2011 and March 28, 2011. The
submissions from each state, and the supplements thereto, may be found
in the docket for this action.
    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and implementing EPA
policy, the states were required to submit either revisions to their
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) necessary to provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, or certifications that their
existing SIPs for ozone and particulate matter already met those basic
requirements. The statute requires that states make these submissions
within three years after the promulgation of new or revised NAAQS.
However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about how states
were to proceed.\1\ Accordingly, both EPA and the states were delayed
in addressing these basic SIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.,
531 U.S. 457 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a consent decree with Earth Justice, EPA agreed to make
completeness findings with respect to these SIP submissions. Pursuant
to this consent decree, EPA published completeness findings for all
states for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008, and for all
states for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 22, 2008.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a guidance document entitled
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards,'' making recommendations to states concerning these
SIP submissions (the 2007 Guidance). Within the 2007 Guidance, EPA gave
general guidance relevant to matters such as the timing and content of
the submissions.
    EPA published its proposed action on the states' submissions on
April 28, 2011. During the comment period on this proposal, EPA
received three comment letters raising a number of concerns with
respect to various issues for one or more states addressed in the
proposal. EPA addresses the significant comments in this final action.
    EPA received comments concerning the proposed approval of the
submission from the State of Wisconsin that require further evaluation.
Accordingly, today EPA is not finalizing its proposed approval of that
submission for section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to two narrow issues:
(i) The requirement for consideration of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX); and (ii) the definition of ``major modification''
related to fuel changes for certain sources. EPA will address these
issues in a later action.

II. What is the scope of this final rulemaking?

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some States raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submissions.\2\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements that it would
address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the
infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to
excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies
addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other

substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated that it would address
the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new
source review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements
of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor
source NSR''); and (ii) existing provisions for prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007)
(``NSR Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA now believes that its
statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with
respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater
depth with respect to these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four
issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the
potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some
states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want
states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the
misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues.
    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issue in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's
reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in
existing SIPs may be addressed separately.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPS are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that
address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\3\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \4\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g.,
``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\5\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states to address each of the four
prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative
actions proceeding on different tracks with different schedules.\6\
This illustrates that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may
sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive
action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic
structural aspects of the state's SIP. Finally, EPA notes that not
every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant,
or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the
attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example,
the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what
might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005)
(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \6\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to
Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\8\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \9\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \10\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \11\ For the one exception to that general assumption,
however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a state's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the State's SIP for the NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance''). EPA
issued comparable guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
    \9\ Id., at page 2.
    \10\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \11\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the
SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as
among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however,
EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these
provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these
specific issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these
NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that
the states should make submissions in which they established that they
have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they
have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be
potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions.

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82,536 (December 30,
2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010)
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposal to approve some
elements and conditionally approve other elements of certifications
submitted by the Region 5 states closed on May 31, 2011. EPA received
three comment letters; a synopsis of the significant individual
comments as well as EPA's response to each comment is discussed below.
    Comment 1: One commenter objected to EPA's proposed approvals of
the states' SIPs on the ground that the states are not adequately
notifying the public of health risks related to the most recent ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. According to the commenter, the SIPs are
not consistent with section 110(a)(2)(J), Sub-element 2: Public
Notification, and EPA's approval of the submissions violates section
110(l). The commenter argued that it ``is wrong for States inform the
public that the air is `safe' based on the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, particularly when EPA has determined that
concentrations of ground-level ozone above 75 parts per billion (ppb)
and concentrations of PM2.5 above 35 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m\3\) are unsafe.'' The commenter continued that ``there
is no reason why States should not be informing the public of air
pollution dangers based on the 75 ppb ozone NAAQS and the 35 [mu]g/m\3\
PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter urged EPA to require states to
inform the public of ``unsafe air pollution levels based on EPA's
official understanding of current public health science.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that the
existing SIPs of these states are not sufficient for purposes of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and that
approval thereof is inconsistent with section 110(l). In the proposed
rulemaking, EPA concluded that each of the Region 5 states ``* * * has
met the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with
respect to the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.'' As explained
above, in these actions EPA is only addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and is not taking action
with respect to any other NAAQS.
    EPA agrees with the commenter that these NAAQS are not as
protective as needed for public health and welfare, as shown by EPA's
more recent promulgation of new NAAQS for both ground level ozone and
particulate matter based on new or revised health assessments.\15\
Nevertheless, all of the Region 5 states' submittals at issue in this
action were intended to satisfy the infrastructure SIP requirements in
relation to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA's action here only addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) in the context of these NAAQS, and not of any
subsequent NAAQS. EPA will be taking separate actions on the Region 5
states' submissions for section 110(a)(1)and (2) with respect to the
revised ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In those later actions, EPA
will evaluate the states' satisfaction of applicable elements of
section 110(a)(2), including section 110(a)(2)(J), based on the
applicable NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The most recent revisions to the 8-hour ground level ozone
NAAQS was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2008 (73 FR
16436), and the most recent revisions to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS was published in the Federal Register on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further point of information, EPA observes that all Region 5
states participate in the AIRNOW program, which reports air quality
according to the current promulgated indices. Thus, members of the
public do have access to information concerning the ambient air quality
in their states, and this information is given with respect to the most
recent ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA believes that the
availability of this information serves to address the

commenter's concerns with respect to public information.
    Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter's view of the
applicability of section 110(l) to these actions on infrastructure
SIPs. EPA agrees that after the Agency promulgates a new or revised
NAAQS, subsequent SIP revisions should generally be evaluated for
compliance with section 110(l) in light of the existence of any such
new or revised NAAQS. However, section 110(l) is more typically a
concern with respect to revisions to an existing SIP in which there
could be a relaxation of a SIP approved provision in a way that would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. In this action, however, EPA is
merely approving a new submission that does not purport to subtract
from the existing SIP as previously approved by the Agency. These
submissions are intended to assure that the state's SIP meets the
requirements with respect to the specific NAAQS at issue, i.e., the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQs and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 2: One commenter objected to EPA's proposed approval of the
submissions from several states on the grounds that the SIPs of each
state contain impermissible provisions. The commenter asserted that the
states of Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois have SSM exemptions in
regulations within their existing SIPs that are in conflict with EPA's
interpretation of the CAA. The commenters argued that such provisions
are contrary to section 110, and that until such provisions are
removed, the SIPs do not meet the requirements of section 110.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's apparent conclusion
that if a state's existing SIP contains any arguably illegal SSM
provision, then EPA cannot approve the infrastructure SIP submission of
that state. As discussed in more detail in section II of this final
rulemaking, ``What is the scope of this final rulemaking?,'' EPA does
not agree that action upon an infrastructure SIP required by section
110(a)(1) and (2) requires that EPA address any existing SSM
provisions.
    EPA shares the commenter's concerns that certain existing SSM
provisions may be contrary to the CAA and existing Agency guidance, and
that such provisions can have an adverse impact on air quality control
efforts in a given state. As stated in the proposal, EPA plans to
address such provisions in the future, and in the meantime encourages
any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it
as soon as possible.
    Comment 3: The same commenter also objected to EPA's proposed
approvals on the grounds that the existing SIPs of two states contain
another form of impermissible provision within their regulations. The
commenter asserted that the states of Wisconsin and Illinois have
director's discretion provisions in their respective regulations that
allow the director of their respective environmental protection
agencies to allow violations of SIP approved emissions limits by
sources under certain circumstances.
    Response 3: EPA also disagrees with the commenter's apparent
conclusion that if a state's existing SIP contains any arguably illegal
director's discretion or director's variance provision, then EPA cannot
approve the infrastructure SIP submission of that state. As discussed
in more detail in section II of this final rulemaking, ``What is the
scope of this final rulemaking?,'' EPA does not agree that action upon
an infrastructure SIP required by section 110(a)(1) and (2) requires
that EPA address any existing director's discretion provisions.
    EPA shares the commenter's concerns that certain existing
director's discretion provisions may be contrary to the CAA and
existing Agency guidance, and that such provisions can have an adverse
impact on air quality control efforts in a given state. As stated in
the proposal, EPA plans to take action in the future to address such
provisions, and in the meantime encourages any state having a deficient
director's discretion or director's variance provision to take steps to
correct it as soon as possible.
    Comment 4: One commenter objected to EPA's proposed approval
because it did not explain why the Agency was not acting on the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in the context of the
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter argued that EPA provided no basis
for, and professed its own lack of awareness of a basis for, the
exclusion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from this action. The commenter
implied that because EPA was not addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
this specific action, it renders the action on the other elements of
section 110(a)(2) illegitimate.
    Response 4: As previously explained, EPA bifurcated action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from the other applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This approach dates back to 2005 when
EPA entered into a consent decree with Environmental Defense Fund which
required EPA to make completeness findings with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) by March 15, 2005, and which required EPA to make
completeness findings with respect to other applicable requirements of
section 110(a)(2) by December 15, 2007, for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
by October 5, 2008, for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The findings
notice that announced EPA's completeness determinations for the
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS clearly articulated which elements of
section 110(a)(2) were relevant to those specific submissions.\16\ In
addition, EPA issued two separate guidance documents making
recommendations for SIP submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
for the other applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) for these
NAAQS. As a result, states made one or more separate submissions to
address the substantive requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that
are separate from, and outside the scope of, the SIP submissions that
are at issue in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., ``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State
Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, 73 FR 16205 (March
27, 2008). EPA specifically noted that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) was
being addressed in separate SIP actions. Id., 73 FR at 16206, at
footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: One commenter argued that the air pollution enforcement
program in Indiana is not sufficient, and implies that this is a basis
for EPA not to approve the infrastructure SIP submission from the
state. According to the commenter, press reports indicate that the
State is not aggressively enforcing air pollution regulations. In
support of its concerns, the commenter referred to an unspecified
letter from EPA to IDEM in which EPA expressed concerns about changes
to the enforcement program and funding of the enforcement program in
Indiana. In addition, the commenter asserted that IDEM has an
enforcement policy that requires a higher threshold for enforcement
showing adverse health impacts as a result of a violation and that this
threshold is inconsistent with protection of public health because of
the difficulty of proving causation with respect to health impacts.
    Response 5: EPA acknowledges that concerns have been raised about
enforcement of air pollution programs in Indiana, including concerns
raised by EPA in a June 24, 2009 letter to David Pippen, Policy
Director in the Office of the Indiana Governor. However, EPA disagrees
that these concerns rise to the level of demonstrating that the state's
SIP is insufficient to meet the basic requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) and (E) with respect to enforcement.

    The commenter's primary objections with respect to enforcement in
Indiana go to matters that are properly construed as questions of
``enforcement discretion.'' In other words, EPA believes that certain
decisions about how best to direct enforcement resources, what sources
to investigate, what types of violations warrant more attention, etc.,
are largely matters of discretion that a state may determine.\17\ EPA
agrees that such enforcement discretion, if taken to extremes, could
call into question whether a state was effectively meeting its
obligations under the CAA. EPA does not see evidence of that in this
case. Similarly, questions of the adequacy of resources for effective
enforcement are largely matters of state discretion and would not be a
basis for disapproval action by EPA unless there were clear evidence
that the absence of resources rose to the level that the state was not
capable of fulfilling its obligations under the CAA. EPA does not see
evidence of that in this case. In short, EPA does not see a basis for
disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submissions by Indiana based on
the questions raised by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ It is important to note that the state's exercise of
enforcement discretion in the case of a particular violation does
not affect potential enforcement by EPA or other parties. Thus, the
state's policies with respect to what types of violations warrant
enforcement action by the state do not necessarily affect the
enforceability of the SIP itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to monitor IDEM's air enforcement program through
monthly conference calls and reviews of enforcement data submitted by
IDEM. EPA confirms that IDEM inspectors are meeting EPA's Compliance
Monitoring Strategy requirements and furthermore, enforcement under
IDEM's reorganized Compliance and Enforcement Branch has shown an
increase in the number of enforcement actions timeliness of resolution.
    EPA concludes that, in the context of acting on the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the air
pollution enforcement program in Indiana is consistent with the basic
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. In the event that
concerns with respect to adequate enforcement of the air pollution
program in the state arise in the future, EPA could address such
concerns using appropriate authorities under the CAA.
    Comment 6: One commenter argued that Illinois has state law
provisions that undermine enforcement of SIP requirements. The
commenter asserts that the enforcement of air pollution regulations in
Illinois ``is undermined by a convoluted interpretation of State law,
including a lengthy appeals process and `automatic stay' provisions
that are applicable to Illinois Pollution Control Board hearings.''
According to the commenter, permittees who challenge their permits
benefit by stays of the challenged permit provisions that can provide
de facto variances from SIP requirements. Implicitly, the commenter
argued that this issue would preclude EPA's approval of the
infrastructure SIP submission by Illinois for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees that the issue raised by the commenter
requires EPA to disapprove the submission by Illinois. EPA's review of
the infrastructure SIP is intended to evaluate whether the state's SIP
contains the basic requirements for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS in question. The commenter's concerns go to a
very specific issue resulting from interpretations of state law. EPA
believes that this issue has already been resolved with the state.
    On March 3, 2011, EPA completed a review of Illinois EPA's
enforcement program in the context of the CAA. EPA is committed to
working with the State to address any problems that were documented in
the review. With respect to the automatic stay provisions in Illinois,
the Illinois State legislature amended the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/) to address this deficiency. The Governor
of Illinois signed this legislation on June 20, 2010. This legislation
eliminated the `automatic stay' provisions noted by the commenter;
therefore, EPA believes that all concerns with respect to this issue
have been resolved with respect to approval of Illinois' infrastructure
SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 7: One commenter asserted that Wisconsin is not
implementing its SIP sufficiently to comply with 40 CFR 51.160 and
section 110(a) of the CAA. The commenter took issue with three aspects
of Wisconsin's permitting program, particularly with respect to
modeling. First, the commenter alleged that WDNR is effectively
exempting sources from demonstrating, through modeling, that emissions
from those sources will not cause NAAQS violations or prevent NAAQS
maintenance. In support of this claim, the commenter claimed that ``* *
* DNR's `guidance' \18\ on modeling notes that sources can avoid
modeling in nonattainment areas if they obtain offsets or model below
the SIL--despite no SIP provision for Wisconsin allowing such
exemptions to Wis. Stat. Sec.  285.63(1). Wisconsin DNR's `guidance'
also exempts all operating permits for sources in nonattainment areas
from the clea[r] requirement to demonstrate compliance with (and non-
prevention of maintenance of) NAAQS as a condition of permit approval
for all operating permits for all sources (not merely those in
attainment areas) in Wis. Stat. Sec.  285.63(1).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The guidance that is being referred to can be found here:
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/pdf/wdnrguidance_v71final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the commenter asserted that WDNR has not been modeling
compliance with PM2.5 for registration permits, and has
supported the claim by citing Wis. Stat. Sec.  285.63. As evidence for
this claim, the commenter pointed to a recent decision by a state
Administrative Law Judge concerning a failure to model compliance with
the PM2.5 NAAQS. The commenter claimed that the State
continues to fail to do so.
    Third, the commenter claimed that WDNR does not model ozone
impacts, i.e., ozone NAAQS compliance, in contravention of the SIP
requirement to demonstrate compliance with all NAAQS as a condition of
permit issuance. Moreover, the commenter further asserted that to its
knowledge ``DNR has never analyzed the impacts of facilities on ozone
during permitting--as it is required to do pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7410(a), 40 CFR 51.160, 51.166 and Wis. Stat. Sec.  285.63(1). In fact,
DNR's guidance states explicitly that it does not model for ozone
impacts.''
    Response 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusions on each
point. First, with respect to the claim that the state's guidance
improperly ``exempts'' sources from modeling, EPA disagrees with the
commenter's conclusions. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51 section
160(a) and (b) require that states have a procedure to establish
whether a source will, inter alia, interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. The guidance cited by the commenter is not
inconsistent with this requirement, and EPA's regulations do not
preclude the appropriate use of offsets or SILs as a means to determine
that there will not be such an impact. Therefore, the commenter's
objections do not indicate that the State's infrastructure SIP is
inconsistent with the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and
(2).
    Second, the argument that the commenter made with respect to the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge is a matter of concern, but
does not establish that the State is failing to conduct the necessary
analysis in connection with all permits. Moreover,

the decision in question relates to the minor source NSR program, and
as explained in section II, minor source NSR is an issue that EPA
considers outside of the scope of infrastructure SIP evaluations.
Therefore, any evaluation of Wisconsin's minor source NSR program will
be conducted independently of this rulemaking.
    Finally, in response to the commenter's third point, the PSD
regulations require an ambient impact analysis for ozone for proposed
major stationary sources and major modifications to obtain a PSD permit
(40 CFR 51.166 (b)(23)(i), (i)(5)(i)(f), (k), (l) and (m) and 40 CFR
52.21 (b)(23)(i), (i)(5)(i)(f), (k), (l) and (m)), but not necessarily
modeling in all cases. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(l) state that
for air quality models the SIP shall provide for procedures which
specify that:
    (1) All applications of air quality modeling involved in this
subpart shall be based on the applicable models, data bases, and other
requirements specified in Appendix W of this part (Guideline on Air
Quality Models).
    (2) Where an air quality model specified in Appendix W of this part
(Guideline on Air Quality Models) is inappropriate, the model may be
modified or another model substituted. Such a modification or
substitution of a model may be made on a case-by-case basis or, where
appropriate, on a generic basis for a specific State program. Written
approval of the Administrator must be obtained for any modification or
substitution. In addition, use of a modified or substituted model must
be subject to notice and opportunity for public comment under
procedures set forth in Sec.  51.102.
    These parts of 40 CFR Part 51 and 52 are the umbrella SIP
components that states have either adopted by reference or the states
have been approved and delegated authority to incorporate the PSD
requirements of the CAA. As discussed above, these Part 51 and 52 PSD
provisions refer to 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W for the appropriate
method to utilize for the ambient impact assessment. 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W is the Guideline on Air Quality models and Section 1.0.a.
states:
    The guideline recommends air quality modeling techniques that
should be applied to State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for
existing sources and to new source review (NSR), including prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD). {footnotes not included{time}
Applicable only to criteria air pollutants, it is intended for use by
EPA Regional Offices in judging the adequacy of modeling analyses
performed by EPA, State and local agencies, and by industry. * * * The
Guideline is not intended to be a compendium of modeling techniques.
Rather, it should serve as a common measure of acceptable technical
analysis when supported by sound scientific judgment.
    Appendix W Section 5.2.1. includes the Guideline recommendations
for models to be utilized in assessing ambient air quality impacts for
ozone. Specifically, Section 5.2.1.c states:
    Estimating the Impact of Individual Sources. Choice of methods used
to assess the impact of an individual source depends on the nature of
the source and its emissions. Thus, model users should consult with the
Regional Office to determine the most suitable approach on a case-by-
case basis (subsection 3.2.2).
    Appendix W Section 5.2.1.c provides that the state and local
permitting authorities and permitting applicants should work with the
appropriate EPA Regional Office on a case-by-case basis to determine an
adequate method for performing an air quality analysis for assessing
ozone impacts. Due to the complexity of modeling ozone and the
dependency on the regional characteristics of atmospheric conditions,
EPA believes this is an appropriate approach rather than specifying a
method for assessing single source ozone impacts, which may not be
appropriate in all circumstances. Instead, the choice of method
``depends on the nature of the source and its emissions. Thus, model
users should consult with the Regional Office * * *.'' Appendix W
Section 5.2.1.c. Therefore, EPA continues to believe it is appropriate
for permitting authorities to consult and work with EPA Regional
Offices as described in Appendix W, including section 3.0.b and c,
3.2.2, and 3.3, to determine the appropriate approach to assess ozone
impacts for each PSD required evaluation.
    EPA has previously approved the State's PSD program.\19\ EPA
observes that Wisconsin routinely consults with staff in the Region 5
Office to examine the impacts of ozone from specific sources on a case-
by-case basis for permitting purposes. Moreover, EPA observes that the
modeling guidance referenced by the commenter is not an approved part
of Wisconsin's SIP. Thus, the commenter has not demonstrated that we
should not approve this infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin,'' 64 FR 28745 (May 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 8: One commenter objected to EPA's proposed conditional
approval of the submissions of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(C) based upon a commitment of each state
to update its respective SIP to eliminate the use of PM10 as
a surrogate for PM2.5 in its PSD program. The commenter
argued that this use of a conditional approval is inappropriate because
it would allow states to continue to use a PM10 surrogacy
policy that EPA has explicitly determined may not be used by states
after May 16, 2011. The commenter further asserted that aside from the
inappropriate use of conditional approval, any approval of SIPs that
rely on the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5
would be contrary to the CAA for a variety of legal and factual
reasons.
    Response 8: Based on an evaluation of the concerns raised by the
commenter, EPA has concluded that a conditional approval is not
appropriate in these specific facts and circumstances. Congress has
explicitly authorized EPA to use conditional approvals under section
110(k)(4), provided that states make a commitment to adopt specific
measures by a date certain within one year. As noted by the commenter,
the courts have confirmed that conditional approvals are an available
course of action under section 110(k), but only if the statutory
conditions for such a conditional approval have been met.
    In this instance, EPA believed that the states had made commitments
to take sufficiently ``specific'' actions within the statutorily
allotted time, by committing to make a specified SIP submission that
would eliminate the use of PM10 as a surrogate for
PM2.5 by a date certain.\20\ However, the commenter's
concerns go not to whether the commitments were specific enough, but
rather to whether a conditional approval is appropriate at all, in
light of other EPA determinations with respect to when states must
cease using the PM10 surrogate policy. EPA agrees that its
own determination with respect to when states must cease using the
PM10

surrogacy policy is relevant to whether a conditional approval is the
correct course of action. Section 110(k)(4) provides that EPA ``may''
approve a SIP conditionally, thereby indicating that EPA has discretion
to determine that a given substantive issue is or is not suitable for a
conditional approval. After considering the commenter's concerns, EPA
has concluded that a conditional approval is not appropriate in these
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The commenter cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296 (D.C.
Cir. 2004), for the proposition that EPA cannot use a section
110(k)(4) conditional approval to approve plans that do ``nothing
more than promise to do tomorrow what the Act requires today.'' EPA
disagrees with this overbroad contention. So long as the conditional
approval meets the statutory requirements of section 110(k)(4), EPA
believes that it may be appropriate to give a conditional approval
to a state allowing it to rectify a deficiency in a submission that
would otherwise constitute a basis for a disapproval, if the state
were not willing to commit to rectify the deficiency within the
requisite time. To read the statute to prohibit use of section
110(k)(4) in such circumstances, as the commenters advocate, would
render it a legal nullity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to address the commenter's substantive concern about
continued use of the PM10 surrogate policy after May 16,
2011, EPA asked the states of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio to clarify
the facts with respect to their current usage of the PM10
surrogate policy for PSD permitting purposes. All three states
responded that they have the legal authority under their respective PSD
regulations to regulate PM2.5 directly, rather than
PM10. Furthermore, the states of Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio
confirmed that they have discontinued reliance on the PM10
surrogate policy to satisfy the PSD requirements for PM2.5.
Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio transmitted letters affirming these points
on June 17, 2011, June 22, 2011, and June 23, 2011, respectively.
    EPA considers the letters from each state to be a supplemental
submission that clarifies and updates the prior infrastructure SIP
submissions. Therefore, EPA considers the facts as represented by each
state in its letter to be a part of the basis for its evaluation of the
infrastructure SIPs. Because each state has confirmed that it already
has the requisite legal authority to regulate PM2.5 directly
in its PSD program, and because each state has confirmed that it is no
longer using the PM10 surrogate policy, EPA concludes that
there is no need to use a conditional approval with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C) for each of these states. Therefore, in today's action EPA
is simply approving the submissions with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C). EPA believes that this course of action will alleviate
the legitimate concerns of the commenters with respect to any continued
use of the PM10 surrogacy policy in these states.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, as well as
the responses to comments received by EPA during the public comment
period, EPA is taking final action to approve elements of submissions
from the EPA Region 5 states certifying that the current SIPs are
sufficient to meet the applicable infrastructure elements under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Notably, whereas the proposed rulemaking
contained conditional approvals for Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio with
respect to their satisfaction of section 110(a)(2)(C), Sub-element 3:
PM10 surrogate policy, EPA's final action for these three
states is an approval based on the discussion in the response to
Comment 8.
    Based upon comments received during the rulemaking, EPA is not
finalizing its proposed approval of the submission from the State of
Wisconsin with respect to two narrow issues that relate to section
110(a)(2)(C): (i) The requirement for consideration of NOX
as a precursor to ozone; and (ii) the definition of ``major
modification'' related to fuel changes for certain sources. EPA will
address these issues in a later action.
    As detailed in section II of this final action, EPA is affirming
that there are four substantive issues outside of the scope of this
rulemaking: SSM provisions, director's discretion provisions, NSR
Reform, and minor source NSR. It should be noted, however, that our
proposed rulemaking included discussion of various past EPA approvals
of minor source NSR program submissions from Region 5 states in
connection with section 110(a)(2)(C). After realizing the confusion
engendered by EPA's statements about certain issues that the Agency
considers outside the scope of action on infrastructure SIPs, we want
to clarify that EPA does not consider the minor source NSR program to
be one that states must address in their infrastructure SIPs, nor one
that EPA must evaluate in approving such infrastructure SIPs.
Therefore, our final action maintains that EPA is neither approving nor
disapproving the minor source NSR programs in the states of Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in the context of
infrastructure SIPs. Any future evaluation of those minor source NSR
programs will be conducted independently of today's actions.
    Specifically, these are EPA's final actions, by element of section
110(a)(2):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In addition to the information provided in this table for
the State of Wisconsin, EPA reiterates once again that we are not
finalizing any action with respect to the definition of ``major
modification'' related to fuel changes for certain sources in
Wisconsin. EPA will address this issue, as well as Wisconsin's PSD
provisions that include NOX as a precursor to ozone, in a
separate action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    WI
            Element                IL     IN     OH    MI    MN    \21\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: Emission limits and other     A      A      A      A     A     A
 control measures.
B: Ambient air quality           A      A      A      A     A     A
 monitoring and data system.
C1: Enforcement of SIP measures  A      A      A      A     A     A
C2: NOX as a precursor to ozone  *      A      A      A     *     NA
 in PSD regulations.
C3: PM10 surrogate policy in     *      A      A      A     *     A
 PSD regulations.
C4: NSR reform.................  NA     NA     NA     NA    NA    NA
C5: GHG permitting in PSD        *      A      A      A     *     A
 regulations.
C6: Minor source NSR             NA     NA     NA     NA    NA    NA
 regulations.
D(i): Interstate transport.....  NA     NA     NA     NA    NA    NA
D(ii): Interstate and            A      A      A      A     A     A
 international pollution
 abatement.
E: Adequate resources..........  A      A      A      A     A     A
F: Stationary source monitoring  A      A      A      A     A     A
 system.
G: Emergency power.............  A      A      A      A     A     A
H: Future SIP revisions........  A      A      A      A     A     A
I: Nonattainment area plan or    NA     NA     NA     NA    NA    NA
 plan revisions under part D.
J1: Consultation with            A      A      A      A     A     A
 government officials.
J2: Public notification........  A      A      A      A     A     A
J3: PSD........................  **     **     **     **    **    **
J4: Visibility protection        NA     NA     NA     NA    NA    NA
 (Regional Haze).
K: Air quality modeling and      A      A      A      A     A     A
 data.
L: Permitting fees.............  A      A      A      A     A     A

M: Consultation and              A      A      A      A     A     A
 participation by affected
 local entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
A Approve.
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
* Federally promulgated rules in place.
** Previously discussed in element (C).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act.
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 Clean Air Act; 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 September 12, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    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 O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.745 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.745  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

    (a) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 submittal, Illinois certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J)
through (M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Illinois continues to
implement the Federally promulgated rules for the prevention of
significant deterioration as they pertain to section 110(a)(2)(C) and
(J).
    (b) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 submittal, Illinois certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J)
through (M) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Illinois continues to
implement the Federally promulgated rules for the prevention of
significant deterioration as they pertain to section 110(a)(2)(C) and
(J).

Subpart P--Indiana

0
3. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' and ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Title                        Indiana date             EPA approval             Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure       12/7/2007, 9/19/2008, 3/ 7/13/2011, [Insert page  This action addresses
 requirements for the 1997 8-Hour       23/2011, and 4/7/2011.   number where the         the following CAA
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                    document begins].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure       12/7/2007, 9/19/2008, 3/ 7/13/2011, [Insert page  This action addresses
 requirements for the 1997 PM2.5        23/2011, and 4/7/2011.   number where the         the following CAA
 NAAQS.                                                          document begins].        elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart X--Michigan

0
4. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' and ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of nonregulatory SIP    Applicable geographic or   State submittal    EPA approval
          provision               nonattainment area            date             date             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)             Statewide.................  12/6/07, 7/19/   7/13/11,         This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                               08, and 4/6/11.  [Insert page     addresses the
 for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone                                                  number where     following CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                     the document     elements:
                                                                            begins].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
Section 110(a)(2)             Statewide.................  12/6/07, 7/19/   7/13/11,         This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                               08, and 4/6/11.  [Insert page     addresses the
 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                  number where     following CAA
                                                                            the document     elements:
                                                                            begins].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
5. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' and ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
  Name of nonregulatory SIP     Applicable geographic or   submittal date/   EPA approved         Comments
          provision                nonattainment area      effective date        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)              Statewide.................        11/29/07  7/13/11,         This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                                                [Insert page     addresses the
 for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone                                                  number where     following CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                     the document     elements:
                                                                            begins].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) and
                                                                                (J).
Section 110(a)(2)              Statewide.................        11/29/07  7/13/11,         This action
 Infrastructure Requirements                                                [Insert page     addresses the
 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                  number where     following CAA
                                                                            the document     elements:
                                                                            begins].         110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
                                                                                Minnesota continues
                                                                                to implement the
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                promulgated rules
                                                                                for the prevention
                                                                                of significant
                                                                                deterioration as
                                                                                they pertain to
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C) and
                                                                                (J).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart KK--Ohio

0
6. Section 52.1891 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1891  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

    (a) Approval. In a December 5, 2007 submittal, supplemented on
April 7, 2011, Ohio certified that the State has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C),
(D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    (b) Approval. In a December 5, 2007 submittal, supplemented on
April 7, 2011, Ohio certified that the State has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (C),
(D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
7. Section 52.2591 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2591  Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements.

    (a) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 submittal, supplemented on
January 24, 2011 and March 28, 2011, Wisconsin certified that the State
has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is not finalizing its proposed
approval of the submission from the State of Wisconsin with respect to
two narrow issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): The requirement
for consideration of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and (ii) the
definition of ``major modification'' related to fuel changes for
certain sources. EPA will address these issues in a later action.
    (b) Approval. In a December 12, 2007 submittal, supplemented on
January 24, 2011 and March 28, 2011, Wisconsin certified that the State
has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) through (C), (D)(ii), (E) through (H), and (J) through (M)
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not finalizing its proposed
approval of the submission from the State of Wisconsin with respect to
two narrow issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): The requirement
for consideration of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and the definition of
``major modification'' related to fuel changes for certain sources. EPA
will address these issues in a later action.

[FR Doc. 2011-17463 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60007-60008]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0362]

Medical Review Board Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Medical Review Board (MRB) public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces that the Agency's MRB will hold a
committee meeting on October 19, 2012, in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The meeting will provide the public an
opportunity to observe and participate in MRB deliberations and
recommendations for updating the field-of-vision (FOV) requirements in
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) medical standards.

DATES: Meeting Date: The MRB meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
on October 19, 2012. For specific information, please note the
preliminary agenda for this meeting in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this Notice.
    Written Comment Dates: You may submit written comments to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) on this topic beginning Friday,
October 5, 2012, through Friday, October 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Hilton-Alexandria Old
Town, 1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. You may submit written
comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket ID
FMCSA-2008-0362 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20003-3302.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and FDMS
Docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room
W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours
each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we
received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears
after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
    You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477). This
information is also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Ward, Nurse Consultant, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office

hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Angela Ward on<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The preliminary agenda for the meeting
includes:

1:00 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Call to Order, Introduction and Agenda Review
1:15 p.m.-1:45 p.m. Field of Vision Updated Evidence Report
1:45 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Break
2:00 p.m.-3:45 p.m. MRB Deliberation on Field of Vision
3:45 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Public Comment Period
4:45 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Call to Adjourn

    The agenda and breaks may be adjusted according to schedule changes
and other meeting requirements.

Background

    The MRB is comprised of five medical experts who serve staggered,
2-year terms. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced those
currently serving on the MRB on November 2, 2010, and June 13, 2012.
Section 4116 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), [Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005] requires the Secretary of
Transportation, with the advice of the MRB and the chief medical
examiner, to establish, review, and revise ``medical standards for
operators of commercial motor vehicles that will ensure that the
physical condition of operators of commercial motor vehicles is
adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely.''
    The MRB operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) as announced in the Federal Register (70 FR 57642, October
3, 2005). The MRB is charged initially with the review of all current
FMCSA medical standards (49 CFR 391.41), as well as proposing new
science-based standards and guidelines to ensure that drivers operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce, as defined in
49 CFR 390.5, are physically capable of doing so.

Visual Field Loss in CMV Drivers

    Federal safety standards at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) state in part,
that a person is medically qualified to drive a CMV if the person,
``has a field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian
in each eye.'' The Agency updated the evidence report released in 2008
on visual field loss and CMV driver safety \1\ and the MRB will use the
updated report in deliberations during the October 19, 2012 meeting.
The updated evidence report, titled ``Visual Field Loss and Commercial
Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' was released in 2012 and is available on
the MRB Web site at http://mrb.fmcsa.dot.gov and in the docket for this
Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Vision and Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety,'' Volume 1:
Evidence Report, June 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting Participation

    Attendance is open to the interested public, including medical
examiners, motor carriers, drivers, and representatives of medical and
scientific associations. Oral comments on the topic from the public
will be heard during the last hour (3:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.) of the
meeting. Oral comments may be limited depending on how many persons
wish to comment, and will be accepted on a first come, first serve
basis as requestors register at the meeting.

    Issued on: September 24, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-24146 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 65305]
[DOCID:fr03no08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-107-000]

KODA Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

October 27, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
KODA Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 26, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-26114 Filed 10-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 56209]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22832]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87300; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 14.11(c) (Index Fund Shares) To Adopt Generic Listing
Standards for Index Fund Shares Based on an Index of Municipal
Securities

October 15, 2019.
    On April 3, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BZX'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Cboe BZX
Rule 14.11(c) to adopt generic listing standards for Index Fund Shares
based on an index or portfolio of municipal securities. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April
22, 2019.\3\ On May 30, 2019, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\5\ On July 18, 2019, the Commission
instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\7\
The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85656 (April 16,
2019), 84 FR 16753.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85966, 84 FR 26172
(June 5, 2019). The Commission designated July 21, 2019 as the date
by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86410, 84 FR 35698
(July 24, 2019). Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings
to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's
consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
``designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,'' and
``to protect investors and the public interest.'' See id. at 35700
(citing 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \8\ provides that, after initiating
disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The date
of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change was
April 22, 2019. October 19, 2019, is 180 days from that date, and
December 18, 2019, is 240 days from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\9\ designates December 18, 2019, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.

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

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22832 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76019]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0550]

Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 390.500 Definition of ``High-Voltage
Vacuum Switch''--21 CFR 1002.61(a)(3) and (b)(2); Withdrawal of
Guidance

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal of Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 390.500 Definition of
``High-Voltage Vacuum Switch''--21 CFR 1002.61(a)(3) and (b)(2) (CPG
Sec. 390.500). CPG Sec. 390.500 is included in FDA's Compliance Policy
Guides Manual, which was listed in the Annual Comprehensive List of
Guidance Documents that published on August 9, 2010.

DATES: The withdrawal is effective December 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean M. Boyd, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Office of Communication, Education, and
Radiological Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4640, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice containing a cumulative list of
guidances available from the agency that published in the Federal
Register of August 9, 2010 (75 FR 48180 at 48233), FDA included the
Compliance Policy Guides Manual, which includes CPG Sec. 390.500. FDA
is withdrawing CPG Sec. 390.500 because it is obsolete.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Dara Corrigan,
Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-30677 Filed 12-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P