[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65778-65782]
[DOCID:fr05no08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated on the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Engineering
Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator of the
Mitigation Directorate has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at

selected locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                *Elevation in
                                                                                feet (NGVD)
                                                                                +Elevation in
            State              City/town/county         Source of flooding                              Location                          feet (NAVD)
                                                                                Depth in
                                                                                feet above ground
                                                                                Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              City of Sturgis, South Dakota
                                                                 FEMA Docket No.: B-7749
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  Bear Butte Creek................  At eastern corporate limits.......................              *3339
                                                                                Approximately 3,400 feet upstream of DM&E railroad              *3566
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  Cook Canyon.....................  Just downstream of DM&E railroad..................              *3446
                                                                                Just downstream of Interstate 90..................              *3480
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  Deadman Gulch...................  Approximately 200 feet downstream of Interstate 90              *3528
                                                                                At Elk Road.......................................              *3600
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  Dolan Creek.....................  At confluence with Bear Butte Creek...............              *3378
                                                                                Approximately 200 feet upstream of Dolan Creek                  *3570
                                                                                Road.
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  East Vanocker Creek.............  At confluence with Vanocker Creek, downstream of                *3529
                                                                                Otter Road.
                                                                                Just downstream of DM&E railroad..................              *3554
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  South Dolan Creek...............  At confluence with Dolan Creek just upstream of                 *3503
                                                                                Interstate 90.
                                                                                At southern corporate limits......................              *3570
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  Vanocker Creek..................  At confluence with Vanocker Creek.................              *3458
                                                                                At Vanocker Road..................................              *3595
South Dakota.................  City of Sturgis.  West Vanocker Creek.............  At confluence with Vanocker Creek, just upstream                *3540
                                                                                of DM&E railroad.
                                                                                Just downstream of Pineview Drive.................              *3590
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                                        ADDRESSES

City of Sturgis
Maps are available for inspection at 1040 Second Street, Suite 102, Sturgis, SD 57785.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Village of Maple Bluff, Wisconsin
                                                                 FEMA Docket No.: B-7790
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin....................  Village of Maple  Lake Mendota....................  Entire Shoreline..................................               +853
                                Bluff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
 + North American Vertical Datum.
  Depth in feet above ground.

                                                                        ADDRESSES

Village of Maple Bluff
Maps are available for inspection at 18 Oxford Place, Madison, WI 53704.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      *Elevation in
                                                                        feet(NGVD)
                                                                      +Elevation in
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced       feet(NAVD)        Communities affected
                                                 elevation          Depth in
                                                                    feet above ground
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Tulare County, California, and Incorporated Areas
                                             FEMA Docket No.: B-7763
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaweah River...........................  At Mill Creek/Packwood                  +363  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Creek Split.                                  Tulare County.
                                         At downstream side of                   +390
                                          Southern Pacific
                                          Railroad.
Shallow Flooding (extensive area         Approximately 1,000 feet                +282  Unincorporated Areas of
 covering 19 map panels).                 southeast of                                  Tulare County, City of
                                          intersection of State                         Farmersville, City of
                                          Highway 99 and Goshen                         Visalia.
                                          Avenue.
                                         Approximately 350 feet                  +391
                                          southwest of
                                          intersection of Lort
                                          Drive and Railroad.
St. Johns River........................  Approximately 0.5 mile                  +317  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of Avenue 328                        Tulare County, City of
                                          Bridge.                                       Visalia.
                                         Approximately 220 feet                  +378
                                          downstream of Southern
                                          Pacific Railroad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Farmersville
Maps are available for inspection at Farmersville City Hall, 909 West Visalia Road, Farmersville, CA.

City of Visalia
Maps are available for inspection at Visalia City Hall East, 315 East Acequia, Visalia, CA.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Tulare County
Maps are available for inspection at Tulare County Resource Management Agency, 5961 South Mooney Boulevard,
 Visalia, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Crawford County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas
                                              FEMA Docket No.: 7770
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cow Creek..............................  Approximately 0.34 mile                 +878  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of South                           Crawford County, City of
                                          Broadway.                                     Pittsburg.
                                         Confluence of Second Cow                +891
                                          Creek.
East Fork of Taylor Branch.............  Approximately 0.35 mile                 +899  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of East 4th                        Crawford County, City of
                                          Street.                                       Pittsburg.
                                         At East Atkinson Avenue..               +930
First Cow Creek........................  Confluence with Second                  +891  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Cow Creek.                                    Crawford County, City of
                                                                                Pittsburg.
                                         Approximately 53 feet                   +908
                                          upstream of West 20th
                                          Street.
Taylor Branch..........................  Confluence with East Fork               +897  City of Pittsburg.
                                          Taylor Branch.
                                         Approximately 0.36 mile                 +934
                                          upstream of East 10th
                                          Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Pittsburg
Maps are available for inspection at 201 West 4th Street, Pittsburg, KS 66762.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Crawford County

Maps are available for inspection at 111 East Forest, Suite M, Girard, KS 66743.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Daviess County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
                                             FEMA Docket No.: B-7748
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilles Ditch...........................  Just upstream Audubon                   +399  City of Owensboro,
                                          Parkway.                                      Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Daviess County.
                                         Approximately 2600 feet                 +415
                                          upstream U.S. 60.
Goetz Ditch............................  Approximately 100 feet                  +397  City of Owensboro,
                                          upstream South Griffith                       Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Avenue.                                       Daviess County.
                                         Approximately 150 feet                  +397
                                          downstream South
                                          Griffith Avenue.

Horse Fork.............................  Approximately 1500 feet                 +394  City of Owensboro,
                                          upstream Wendell Ford                         Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Expressway..                                  Daviess County.
                                         Approximately 120 feet                  +418
                                          downstream of KY-54.
Ohio River.............................  At the western county                   +383  City of Owensboro,
                                          boundary (Approximately                       Unincorporated Areas of
                                          11000 feet downstream                         Daviess County.
                                          Crane Pond Slough).
                                         At confluence with                      +393
                                          Blackford Creek.
Persimmon Ditch........................  Just upstream Ewing Road.               +389  City of Owensboro,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Daviess County.
                                         Just downstream U.S. 60..               +401
Scherm Ditch...........................  Just upstream Lewis Lane.               +399  City of Owensboro,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Daviess County.
                                         Approximately 1100 feet                 +400
                                          upstream South Griffith
                                          Avenue.
Yellow Creek...........................  Just upstream KY-144.....               +392  City of Owensboro,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Daviess County.
                                         Approximately 520 feet                  +408
                                          upstream Wendell Ford
                                          Expressway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Owensboro
Maps are available for inspection at PO Box 732, 200 East 3rd Street, Owensboro, KY 42302-0732.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Daviess County
Maps are available for inspection at PO Box 732, 200 East 3rd Street, Owensboro, KY 42302-0732.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Lea County, New Mexico, and Incorporated Areas
                                             FEMA Docket No.: B-7790
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Street Ditch......................  Approximately 270 feet                 +3887  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of S.                              Lea County.
                                          Industrial Rd..
                                         Approximately 2050 feet                +3893
                                          upstream of S.
                                          Industrial Road.
Railroad Ditch.........................  Intersection of S. Main                +3880  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Street and E. Gilmore                         Lea County.
                                          Road.
                                         Intersection of R Avenue               +3911
                                          and 9th Street.
Stream 2...............................  Intersection with Dal                  +3637  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Paso Street.                                  Lea County.
                                         Approximately 2650 feet                +3643
                                          upstream of Dal Paso St.
                                          (City of Hobbs limits).
Stream 3...............................  Intersection with N. Dal               +3655  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Paso St..                                     Lea County.
                                         Approximately 2850 feet                +3674
                                          upstream of N. Rolling
                                          Meadows Dr..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Lea County
Maps are available for inspection at 100 North Main, Lovington, NM 88260.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Waukesha County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
                                             FEMA Docket No.: B-7790
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Nagawicka.........................  Entire Shoreline.........               *893  Village of Nashotah.
North Lake.............................  Entire Shoreline.........               *900  Village of Chenequa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

                                                    ADDRESSES
Village of Chenequa
Maps are available for inspection at 31275 W. Hwy K, Chenequa, WI 53029.

Village of Nashotah
Maps are available for inspection at N44 W32950 Watertown Plank Rd, Nashotah, WI 53058-0123.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 24, 2008.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-26293 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7949-7951]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03886]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85205; File No. SR-CBOE-2019-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Allow the Addition of New Series of Options on an Individual Stock
Until the Close of Trading on the Business Day Prior to Expiration in
Unusual Market Conditions

February 27, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 21, 2019, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to allow the addition of new series of options on an individual stock
until the close of trading on the business day prior to expiration in
unusual market conditions. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided below and in Exhibit 1.
(deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Rules of Cboe Exchange, Inc.

* * * * *
Rule 5.5. Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading
    (a)-(e) (No change).
. . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.03 (No change).
    .04 New series of options on an individual stock may be added until
the beginning of the month in which the option contract will expire.
Due to unusual market conditions, the Exchange, in its discretion, may
add new series of options on an individual stock until the close of
trading on the [second] business day prior to expiration.
    .05-.23 (No change).
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .04 to
Rule 5.5. to allow for the addition of new series of options on an
individual stock until the close of trading on the business day prior
to expiration in unusual market conditions. This is a competitive
proposed rule change based on filings submitted by the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and NASDAQ OMX BX (``BX'') to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 34-70900 (November 19,
2013), 78 FR 70382 (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Change the Expiration Date for Most Options
Contracts to the Third Friday of the Expiration Month Instead of the
Saturday Following the Third Friday) (SR-ISE-2013-58); Securities
Exchange Act Release 34-70746 (October 23, 2013), 78 FR 64563
(Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Implement Transition to Friday Expiration for Most Options
Contracts) (SR-BX-2013-055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, under Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 5.5, when
faced with unusual market conditions, the Exchange may add new series
of options on an individual stock until the close of trading on the
second business day prior to expiration. In 2013, the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') implemented a transition for standard option
monthly expiration processing from Saturday to Friday. Accordingly, the
Exchange, along with other exchanges, updated its rules to reflect the
OCC change, referencing Friday expiration dates to replace Saturday
expiration dates for all options expiring on or after February 1,
2015.\6\ The Exchange also replaced any historic references to
expiration dates with Friday expiration. At this time, other exchanges
amended their rules to differentiate between Friday and Saturday or
non-business day expirations during the transitional period. Other
exchanges specified that additional series of individual stock options
may be added during unusual market conditions until the close of
trading on the business day prior to expiration in the case of an
option contract expiring on a business day (i.e., Thursday for Friday
expirations), or, in the case of an option contract expiring on a day
that is not a business day until

the close of trading on the second business day prior to expiration
(i.e., Thursday for Saturday expirations). Consistent with the OCC
initiative and industry-wide definition, the Exchange currently no
longer lists series of option contracts with Saturday or non-business
day expirations. The Exchange thus proposes to amend Rule 5.5.
Interpretation and Policy .04 to allow specifically for the addition of
new series of options on an individual stock until the close of trading
on the business day prior to expiration in unusual market conditions in
line with other exchanges' timing requirements for listing series of
options prior to expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 1.1(mmm), Rule 23.5 & Rule 24.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange seeks to introduce this proposed change to
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 5.5 to create a uniform
expiration date across exchanges for standard options on listed
classes. The Exchange believes that keeping its rules consistent with
those of the industry will protect all participants in the market by
eliminating confusion, reducing the likelihood of rule violations due
to discrepant industry rules, and by allowing for a more orderly
market. In addition, the Exchange believes that keeping the proposed
rule consistent with other exchange rules will foster better
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities by aligning a pivotal part of
the options processing to be consistent industry-wide
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that keeping its rules
consistent with those of other exchanges and industry practices will
protect all participants in the market by eliminating confusion, thus,
preventing investor vulnerability to violating different exchange
rules. Additionally, the proposed change will foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities by aligning the timing of series of options listing
during unusual market conditions to be consistent industry-wide.
Further, as the industry-wide transition from Saturday (and non-
business day) expiration dates to Friday (or other business days)
expiration dates was successful, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change will remove a discrepant industry impediment and allow for
a more orderly market by permitting all options markets, including the
clearing agencies, to have the same expiration date for series of
options listed during periods of unusual market conditions. The
proposed rule change also perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market by allowing for the Exchange to list additional series of
options on an individual stock closer to expiration during unusual
market conditions thus better aligning the listed series of options
with prices near expiration. Finally, the proposed rule change does not
permit unfair discrimination between any Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') as it is applied to all TPHs equally.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to proposals previously filed by ISE
and BX with the Commission.\10\ The proposed rule change will allow for
the Exchange to list additional series of options on an individual
stock closer to expiration during unusual market conditions thus better
aligning the listed series of options with prices near expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \13\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \14\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay. The
Exchange believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because it is
substantially similar in all material respects to a previous ISE and BX
filing,\15\ and does not raise any new or novel issues. For this
reason, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposal as operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ See supra note 5.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may

temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2019-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2019-013 and should be
submitted on or before March 26, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03886 Filed 3-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19946-19947]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-111-000.
    Applicants: Westlake Chemicals & Vinyls LLC.
    Description: Westlake Chemicals & Vinyls LLC submits Notice of
Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER23-754-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revisions to GIP re Electric
Storage Resources Compliance to be effective 3/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1010-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Service Agreement No.
3756, Queue#None to be effective 4/2/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1030-001.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Basin Electric Submission of
Amendment to Extend Time for Action in ER23-1030 to be effective 11/29/
2022.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1304-000.
    Applicants: MFT Energy US 1 LLC.
    Description: Supplement to March 10, 2023, MFT Energy US 1 LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 3/24/23.
    Accession Number: 20230324-5203.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/14/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1493-000.
    Applicants: RWE Clean Energy Wholesale Services, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession for RWE
Clean Energy Wholesale to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1494-000.
    Applicants: RWE Clean Energy Solutions, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession for RWE
Clean Energy Solutions to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1495-000.
    Applicants: SEP II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession for SEP
II, LLC to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1496-000.
    Applicants: GSG Wind, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Revised
Reactive Service Rate Schedule to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1497-000.
    Applicants: GSG Wind, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Succession and Revised
Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1498-000.
    Applicants: Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes in Category Status
and Notices of Succession to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1499-000.
    Applicants: RWE Clean Energy O&M, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes in Category Status
and Notices of Succession to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1500-000.
    Applicants: RWE Clean Energy QSE, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes in Category Status
and Notices of Succession to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1501-000.
    Applicants: RWE Supply & Trading Americas, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes in Category Status
and Notices of Succession to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1502-000.
    Applicants: RWE Supply & Trading US, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Changes in Category Status
and Notices of Succession to be effective 3/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1503-000.
    Applicants: Cavalier Solar A, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Cavalier Solar A, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1504-000.
    Applicants: Partin Solar LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Authority to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1505-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., City
Water and Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
03-29_Jonesboro Integration Revisions to Schedules 7, 8, and 9 to be
effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1506-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., City
Water and Light Plant of the City of Jonesboro.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
03-29_EAL-AECC Amended JPZ Agreement inclusion of Jonesboro to be
effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1507-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA, SA
No. 4099, Queue No. X1-087 to be effective 3/31/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1508-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT Reconciliation and
Clean-up Filing to be effective 3/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1509-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of ISAs, SA
Nos. 4122, 4125, 4126, 4129 and 4130 to be effective 4/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1510-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO-
National Grid Joint 205: Amended SGIA Regan Solar Project SA2574 to be
effective 3/15/2023.
    Filed Date: 3/29/23.
    Accession Number: 20230329-5191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH23-8-000.
    Applicants: Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
    Description: Public Sector Pension Investment Board submits FERC
65-A Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 3/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230328-5291.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/23.

    Docket Numbers: PH23-9-000.
    Applicants: Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
    Description: Public Sector Pension Investment Board submits FERC
65-B Notice of Non-Material Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 3/28/23.
    Accession Number: 20230328-5292.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/18/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 29, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06984 Filed 4-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27938-27943]
[DOCID:fr19my10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0269; FRL-9152-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; Legal Authority

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to clarify the contents of the
applicable implementation plan for the State of California under the
Clean Air Act. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to clarify that
the statutory provisions submitted by California and approved by EPA in
1972 supporting the State's legal authority chapter of the original
implementation plan were superseded by a subsequent approval by EPA in
1980 of California's revision to the legal authority chapter of the
plan. EPA is taking this action to clarify the status in the California
plan of the statutory provisions submitted and approved in 1972.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0269 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office
(AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3974<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On January 29, 2010 (75 FR 4742), under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act''), we proposed to clarify that the statutory provisions
submitted by California in 1972 supporting the State's legal authority
chapter of the original implementation plan were superseded by a
subsequent approval by EPA in 1980 of a revision to California's legal
authority chapter of the plan.
    In support of our proposed action, we provided a detailed account
of the regulatory context in which the original California State
implementation plan (SIP) was submitted and approved by EPA. We also
described in detail the contents of the original California SIP, which
consisted of 13 parts, the first part (``State General Plan'') of which
included a chapter 7 (``Legal Considerations''), referred to herein as
the ``legal authority'' chapter. The original SIP also included an
appendix (entitled ``Appendix II: State Statutes and other Legal
Documents Pertinent to Air Pollution Control in California'') to the
legal authority chapter. The legal authority chapter included many
citations to individual sections within the California Health & Safety
Code (CH&SC) and other California codes, as well as citations to (then)
recently approved legislation, and attorney general opinions as support
for the assurance that adequate legal authority exists in the State to
meet CAA and EPA SIP requirements.
    As described in the proposal, the appendix to the legal authority
chapter in the plan (herein, ``appendix II'') included the specific
sections of California code and other legal documents cited in chapter
7, but also included many sections of California code that were not
cited specifically in chapter 7. Our proposed rule describes in detail
the contents of appendix II and its 14 categories of statutory and
other legal documents.
    In May 1972, we approved in part and disapproved in part the
original California SIP. See 37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972) and 40 CFR
52.220(b). EPA's approval included both chapter 7 and the statutory and
other documents contained in appendix II as described above.
    As explained in our proposed rule, in response to EPA's request and
in response to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, California
undertook a comprehensive update to the California SIP. On March 16,
1979, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted a revision to
the legal authority chapter of the SIP, entitled ``Chapter 3--Legal
Authority, Revision to State of California Implementation Plan for the
Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards (December
1978),'' (also referred to herein as ``Chapter 3--Legal Authority'' or
the ``revised legal authority'' chapter). Much like the original legal
authority chapter, the revised legal authority chapter provides an
overview of air pollution control in California. While the general
topics covered in the revised legal authority chapter were similar to
those covered in the original legal authority chapter, the discussion
is completely re-organized and updated to reflect, among other things,
recodifications of statutory provisions. Also, like the legal authority
chapter in the original SIP, the revised legal authority chapter
includes numerous citations to individual sections of the CH&SC (which
had been re-numbered and re-codified since the time of the original
SIP), certain citations to other California codes and other legal
documents. However, unlike the legal authority chapter in the original
SIP, the revised legal authority chapter, as submitted in 1979, did not
include physical copies of the actual statutory provisions nor the
other documents cited in the chapter. Instead, the 1979 SIP revision
simply incorporates by reference the 1978 edition of California Air
Pollution Control Laws as ``appendix 3-A'' to the chapter. Later in
1979, we proposed approval of the revised SIP ``Chapter 3--Legal
Authority'' as an update and clarification of the 1972 SIP. See 44 FR
38912 (July 3, 1979). The following year, we took final action,
effective September 10, 1980, to approve the revised legal authority
chapter. See 45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980) and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(48).
Since that time, EPA has not approved any other revision to the chapter
that addresses legal authority in the California SIP.
    Based upon our review of the relevant provisions of the original
California SIP and the related 1979 SIP revision, and the corresponding
EPA approval actions, we proposed to clarify the contents of the SIP to
reflect our determination that the statutory provisions and other legal
documents

submitted in support of the legal authority chapter in the original SIP
were superseded by our 1980 approval of the revised legal authority
chapter of the California SIP (codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(48)) and
are no longer part of the California SIP. Our determination that the
1979 submittal of the revised legal authority chapter represented a
wholesale replacement of the original chapter was based on the nature
and scope of the revised chapter and the mismatch between the statutory
citations in the revised chapter and those contained in the original
chapter.\1\ We also noted that the actual statutory provisions and
other legal documents relied upon to support a State's assurance of
adequate legal authority need not be approved into the SIP under CAA
section 110 or EPA's SIP regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (although such
provisions are required to be submitted with the plan). Thus, EPA could
approve, consistent with CAA and EPA requirements, and did so in this
instance, a wholesale revision to the original legal authority chapter
without also approving the actual statutory provisions and other legal
documents cited therein.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ARB described the nature and purpose of that agency's
comprehensive update of the California SIP during the late 1970's as
follows: ``The [EPA] has formally requested that the [ARB] update
the State of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and
Maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, usually
referred to simply as the `SIP.' The original SIP document,
submitted to EPA in 1972, has become obsolete largely because of the
many modifications to Federal, state, and local air pollution rules
and regulations and substantial advancements in technical aspects of
air pollution prediction and control. A new SIP 1978 Working
Document has been prepared as an initial response to the EPA request
and contains an updated summary and description of the California
SIP. * * * The SIP 1978 Working Document is a step towards replacing
the obsolete 1972 SIP.'' See page 1 of Chapter 1 (``Introduction'')
(April 1978) of the SIP--78 Working Document. Therefore, the revised
legal authority chapter was intended by ARB, and approved by EPA, as
a wholesale replacement of the original legal authority chapter,
including the related statutory provisions and other materials
submitted in support of the original chapter.
    \2\ We view the revised legal authority chapter's incorporation
(as appendix 3-A) of the 1978 edition of California Air Pollution
Control Laws as simply providing a general reference to where the
statutory citations in the chapter could be located rather than as
having the effect of a literal reading of the provisions into the
chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To memorialize our interpretation of the effect of our 1980
approval of the revised legal authority chapter of the California SIP,
we proposed under CAA section 301(a)(1) \3\ to revise 40 CFR
52.220(b)(12)(i) to clarify that none of the statutory provisions (and
other legal documents) submitted in connection with chapter 7 (``Legal
Considerations'') of the original California SIP remain in the SIP, not
just the few provisions currently listed as being deleted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAA section 301(a)(1) states: ``The Administrator is
authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry
out his functions under this chapter. * * *.'' We believe that our
rule proposed herein today is necessary to clarify the contents of
the California SIP and thereby carry out the functions of EPA in
connection with the state's plan.
    \4\ As noted in the proposed rule, the status of the statutory
provisions from the original SIP has recently come into question in
the context of third party litigation, an EPA rulemaking action on a
revision to new source review rules in the San Joaquin Valley, and a
lawsuit filed against EPA challenging certain EPA actions on the
premise that such actions were arbitrary and capricious if a certain
statutory provision submitted and approved by EPA in connection with
the original SIP remains in effect as part of the current applicable
California SIP. Thus, we believe that clarification of the status of
the statutory provisions (and other legal documents) submitted in
connection with the original SIP is necessary and appropriate at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional background information for today's action can be found
in our January 29, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 4742).

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Our January 29, 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 4742) provided for a 30-
day comment period. During that period, we received comments from four
groups: Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club, by letter dated
March 1, 2010; Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (referred to
herein as ``AIR''), on behalf of the Association of Irritated Residents
and many other community and environmental groups, by letter dated
March 1, 2010; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(``District''), by letter dated February 24, 2010; and Greenberg-
Glusker law firm (referred to herein as ``Dairy Cares''), on behalf of
Dairy Cares, a coalition of California's dairy producer and processor
associations, by letter dated March 1, 2010.
    Earthjustice expresses support for EPA's proposed rule. The three
other commenters object to our proposed action. Dairy Cares joins in
the District's comments and adds comments of its own. In the following
paragraphs, we provide a summary of all significant adverse comments
and we provide our corresponding responses. For the purposes of this
section of the document, ``District'' refers herein to both the
District and Dairy Cares, whereas ``Dairy Cares'' is used in reference
to the additional comments submitted by this commenter.
    Comment #1: AIR contends that there has never been an exemption for
agricultural sources in the SIP as it relates to San Joaquin Valley.
Under the Safe Air case, AIR contends that there can be no exemptions
in the SIP by virtue of the original 1972 SIP and 1978 SIP Revision
because the SIP's plain language as adopted and submitted contains no
exemption and the vague references to California statutory authority
are not in the SIP as incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). AIR also asserts that EPA could not have lawfully
approved the original 1972 SIP and 1978 SIP Revision with exemptions
for agricultural sources without violating the Clean Air Act.
    Response #1: We recognize that our approval of the original
California SIP in 40 CFR 52.220(a) (``Title of plan: `The State of
California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards' '') and (b) (``The plan was
officially submitted on February 21, 1972'') on May 31, 1972 (37 FR
10842, at 10851) says nothing about the contents of the original SIP.
To uncover its contents, we reviewed a copy of the original SIP
maintained in the collection of materials at the National Archives and
Record Center in San Bruno, California. From that copy, we determined
that the original SIP contained an appendix to the legal authority
chapter that contained various statutory provisions, and other legal
documents.
    Among the statutes in the appendix was CH&SC section 24265, which
excludes certain categories of emission sources, including equipment
used in agricultural operations in the growing of crops or raising of
fowls or animals, from the general grant of authority to local air
districts to require permits for new and existing emissions sources
(herein, ``agricultural permitting exemption''). We found no evidence
in the original SIP itself that the materials in the appendix to the
legal authority chapter were not intended by the State to be included
in the plan itself. Nor did we find any evidence in our approval action
that we did not intend to approve the entire contents of the appendix
to the legal authority chapter of the original California SIP. In our
May 31, 1972 final approval of the original California SIP, we added 40
CFR 52.233, which states: ``With the exceptions set forth in this
subpart, the Administrator approves California's plan for the
attainment and maintenance of the national standards.'' See 37 FR
10842, at 10852. In the case of our May 1972 action on the original
SIP, none of the ``exceptions set forth in this subpart,'' such as our
findings in 40 CFR 52.225 (``Legal Authority'') that the California SIP
failed to provide sufficient legal

authority to meet the requirements related to air pollution emergencies
and to make emissions data publicly available, provide evidence that we
disapproved any of contents of the appendix to the legal authority
chapter of the original SIP. Therefore, we concluded that the statutory
provisions and other legal documents contained in the appendix to the
legal authority chapter of the original California SIP were approved
along with the rest of the plan in May 1972, and the agricultural
permitting exemption found in CH&SC section 24265 was swept into the
SIP by virtue of being included among the appendix materials so
approved.
    AIR points to the Safe Air case in support for its contention that
no exemptions are in the SIP by virtue of the original 1972 SIP
(submitted and approved in 1972) and the ``1978 SIP Revision'' (i.e.,
the revision to the legal authority chapter, which was adopted in
December 1978, submitted in March 1979, and approved in September
1980). In so doing, AIR states that the SIP's plain language contains
no exemption and asserts that the vague references to California
statutory authority are not in the SIP as incorporated by reference in
the CFR. In the Safe Air case, the court held that ``SIPs are
interpreted based on their plain meaning when such a meaning is
apparent, not absurd, and not contradicted by the manifest intent of
EPA, as expressed in the promulgating documents available to the
public.'' See Safe Air for Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1100 (9th
Cir. 2007). Under the circumstances of the Safe Air case, the court
found that the plain language of the Idaho SIP did not include the
State's statutory restrictions on regulation of field burning, nor were
the statutory restrictions on regulation of field burning made manifest
in EPA's approval of the State's open burning rule, and thus, were not
relevant in interpreting the existing SIP.
    With respect to the agricultural permitting exemption and the
California SIP, the existence of the exemption as part of the original
California SIP as approved by EPA is apparent from a review of the
submitted plan itself. We also do not believe our approval of the
exemption in 1972 to be absurd or contradicted by the manifest intent
of the State of California or EPA. As such, our interpretation is
consistent with the holding of the Safe Air case. As clarified in
today's action, our approval of California's 1979 update to the legal
authority chapter of the California SIP superseded the original legal
authority chapter and the related supporting appendix materials in the
California SIP, including the agricultural permitting exemption.
    Lastly, AIR asserts that EPA should interpret the Agency's
California SIP approvals under the presumption that, absent a
demonstration to the contrary, we acted consistent with the CAA and
related Agency policies, and because in AIR's view, we could not have
lawfully approved the original 1972 SIP and the ``1978 SIP Revision''
with exemptions for agricultural sources without violating the Clean
Air Act, then the presumption should be that the exemptions were not
approved into the SIP. First, we did not approve the agricultural
permitting exemption when we took action in 1980 to approve
California's 1979 update to the legal authority chapter of the SIP. As
discussed in our January 29, 2010 proposed rule, we have concluded,
however, that we did approve the agricultural permitting exemption in
1972 when we approved the original California SIP.
    We disagree that our 1972 approval did not comport with the
requirements for SIPs under the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations in
effect at that time. Given the state of air pollution knowledge at the
time, a SIP exemption from permitting for agricultural sources is not
surprising. In 1972, stationary sources had yet to be divided under the
Clean Air Act into ``major'' and ``minor'' categories (the requirement
for permitting of ``major'' sources came later), and given the state of
knowledge concerning air pollution sources and control methods at the
time, it is certainly plausible that neither the State of California
nor EPA foresaw that regulation of new and modified agricultural
sources, as opposed to new and modified factories and smelters, and the
regulation of motor vehicles, would be necessary to attain and maintain
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
    As noted above, we have concluded that the agricultural permitting
exemption, along with the other statutes and legal documents, submitted
in the appendix to the legal authority chapter in the original 1972 SIP
were approved by EPA and made part of the applicable SIP. To the
extent, however, that uncertainty remains on this point, it does not
matter from the standpoint of the California SIP over the past 30
years, because, as we are clarifying in this final rule, our 1980
approval of the legal authority chapter superseded the 1972 approval of
the corresponding chapter (and its related appendix) such that the
agricultural exemption was no longer in the SIP beginning with the
effective date of our final rule approving the revised chapter (i.e.,
September 10, 1980).
    Comment #2: The District contends that California's agricultural
permitting exemption was approved into the SIP in 1972.
    Response #2: We agree. As explained in detail in the January 29,
2010 proposed rule (75 FR at 4743), we have concluded that the
statutory provisions contained in appendix II to chapter 7 of the
original California SIP, including the agricultural permitting
exemption in CH&SC section 24265, were indeed approved into the
California SIP. Our interpretation of SIP requirements is that, while
the SIP must provide ``necessary assurances'' of ``adequate authority''
and must identify the provisions of law that provide for ``adequate
authority,'' the statutes themselves need not be approved as part of
the SIP. That does not mean that the statutes supporting the legal
authority portion of a SIP cannot be approved into the SIP, only that
they need not be. In 1972, California submitted the statutes supporting
the legal authority chapter of the original California SIP to EPA, and
EPA approved the original SIP, with exceptions not relevant here. Thus,
while the statutory provisions need not have been approved into the
California SIP, we agree that they in fact were so approved in 1972.
    Comment #3: The District disagrees with EPA's finding that the
statutes supporting California's revised legal authority chapter, as
submitted in 1979, were not physically submitted as part of the SIP
revision containing the revised chapter. In support of its position,
the District cites ``appendix 3-A'' to ``chapter 3--Legal Authority,''
which was submitted in 1979 and approved by EPA in 1980, and which, in
the District's view, contains the 1978 edition of the California Air
Pollution Control Laws, including the agricultural permitting exemption
[by then re-codified to CH&SC section 42310(e)].
    Response #3: The legal authority chapter and appendix, as revised
in 1979 by California and submitted to EPA, includes several references
to the 1978 edition of California Air Pollution Control Laws. On page
1, the revised legal authority chapter states:

    ``All section references hereafter in this chapter are to the
Health and Safety Code unless otherwise indicated. The 1978 edition
of California Air Pollution Control Laws include all applicable
sections of the Health and Safety Code, the Business and
Professional Code, and the Vehicle Code. This edition is
incorporated as appendix 3-A to this chapter available separately
from the ARB Public Information Office, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,
CA 95812.''

    As noted in footnote 3 of our January 29, 2010 proposed rule (at 75
at 4744), we view the phrase ``this edition is incorporated as appendix
3-A'' as simply providing a general reference to where the statutory
citations in the chapter could be located, rather than as having the
effect of a literal reading of the provisions into the chapter. Our
view is supported by the fact that the revised legal authority chapter
does not ``incorporate by reference'' the 1978 edition of California
Air Pollution Control Laws nor does the chapter identify any State law
or rule that provides for a literal reading of large volumes of text
into another State document, similar in purpose to the Office of the
Federal Register's rules concerning ``incorporation by reference'' in
connection with Federal rules (See 1 CFR part 51). In contrast, the
statutory provisions and other legal documents supporting the legal
authority chapter were physically submitted in ``appendix II'' to the
original California SIP, as discussed above. ``Appendix 3-A'' itself is
only found in the table of contents to the 1979 revised legal authority
chapter. Next to the listing of ``Appendix 3-A'' in the table of
contents is the following statement: ``California Air Pollution Control
Laws, 1978 Edition, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
95812 (available from ARB's Public Information Office).''
    Given the facts discussed above, we believe that the District is
incorrect in claiming that appendix 3-A to the 1979 revised legal
authority chapter ``contains'' the 1978 edition of California Air
Pollution Control Laws. At most, it refers to the 1978 edition of
California Air Pollution Control Laws. Not only did the revised legal
authority chapter not contain the statutes, we believe that ARB's
approach to keeping the statutes themselves physically separate from
the revised legal authority chapter evinces an intent on the part of
ARB not to include the statutes themselves in the SIP.
    Comment #4: Regardless of whether the statutes were resubmitted,
the District claims that EPA provides no support for its finding that
the statutory provisions and other legal documents contained in the
1972 SIP were superseded by its approval of California's 1979 revised
legal authority chapter.
    Response #4: In our proposed rule (75 FR at 4744), we provide the
following support for our conclusion that our approval of the 1979
legal authority chapter superseded our earlier approval of the legal
authority chapter as well as the statutes and other legal documents
submitted in support of the legal authority chapter from the original
California SIP:
     Contemporaneous statements by ARB as to the wholesale
nature of the SIP update undertaken in 1978 and 1979;
     The mismatch between the statutory citations in the
revised legal authority chapter and the statutes submitted in support
of the legal authority chapter of the original SIP; and
     Our conclusion that statutes providing support for a
State's ``necessary assurances'' of adequate legal authority for the
purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) need not be approved in the SIP.
    As to the third bulleted item, above, the District objects to EPA's
conclusion that the statutes providing support for a State's
``necessary assurances'' of adequate legal authority need not be
approved in the SIP to meet CAA and EPA SIP requirements. The District
contends that EPA's reading of the SIP requirements in this regard is
illogical and unsupported because there is no reason to conclude that
statutes that must be submitted with the plan need not be approved into
the plan. However, as explained below, the language of both the statute
itself and our SIP regulations support our finding that the statutes
supporting a State's ``necessary assurances'' of adequate legal
authority need not be approved into the SIP. In other words, the
statutes may be approved into the SIP, but are not required to be
approved into the SIP.
    First, under CAA section 110(a)(2), each SIP shall ``(E) provide
(i) necessary assurances that the State * * * will have adequate * * *
authority under State * * * law to carry out such implementation plan *
* *.'' The statute thus requires that SIPs provide ``necessary
assurances,'' of adequate legal authority, not that SIPs must include
statutes that establish legal authority. A State's demonstration of
``necessary assurances'' must be contained in the SIP, but the form in
which the demonstration is made can take various forms, including but
not limited to a narrative discussion (e.g., legal authority chapter),
an Attorney General's letter, the statutes themselves, or some
combination of the above. In contrast, for other SIP elements, the CAA
requires the underlying regulations to be included in the SIP, not just
``necessary assurances'' of such regulations. For instance, under
section 110(a)(2)(A), each SIP must ``include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures * * *.'' A State's ``necessary
assurances'' of such enforceable emission limitations is not enough to
satisfy this CAA requirement. The State must submit the enforceable
emission limitations themselves, which generally take the form of air
pollution control rules and regulations, to comply with the relevant
CAA requirement.
    Second, the relevant EPA SIP regulations require that ``Each plan
must show that the State has legal authority to carry out the plan, * *
*'' (emphasis added) (See 40 CFR 51.230), but, as to the statutes
themselves, EPA's regulations state: ``The provisions of law or
regulation which the State determines provide the authorities required
* * * must be specifically identified, and copies of such laws or
regulations be submitted with the plan.'' (emphasis added). See 40 CFR
51.231(a). The phrase, ``each plan must show,'' refers to elements that
must be included as part of the plan, whereas the latter phrase,
``submitted with the plan,'' is, at most, ambiguous as to whether the
items that must be submitted must also be included in the plan itself.
But, when considered with the statutory language in CAA section
110(a)(2)(E) that requires the SIP to include ``necessary assurances''
of adequate legal authority, not the statutes themselves, it is
reasonable to interpret 40 CFR 51.231(a) as requiring the submittal of
the statutory provisions (providing support for the necessary showing
of adequate legal authority) for the purpose of allowing EPA to conduct
an informed review of a State's demonstration of ``necessary
assurances'' of adequate legal authority, and as not requiring approval
of the statutory provisions themselves as part of the SIP.
    Lastly, the District points to EPA's own description of the
Agency's approval of the revised legal authority chapter as
``nonsignificant'' and ``administrative in nature'' as inconsistent
with EPA's contention that the approval of the revised legal authority
chapter superseded the earlier chapter and related statutory provisions
given the significance that the District attaches to the supersession
of those provisions. However, EPA's description of its action approving
the revised legal authority chapter as ``administrative'' mirrors ARB's
foreword to the revised legal authority chapter: ``Chapter 3 is an Air
Resources Board (ARB) revision to the State of California
Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air
Quality Standards (SIP). It is an administrative chapter which outlines
the State's legal authority to implement the measures contained in the
State Implementation Plan required by the Clean Air Act * * *.'' Our
approval action was thus

consistent with ARB's description of the revised legal authority
action.
    Retention of the statutory provisions that had been submitted as
part of the original SIP would imply that they have significance
outside of their purpose in providing support for the State's
``necessary assurances'' of adequate legal authority, which ARB
submitted in the form of a narrative chapter. But, ARB's description of
the chapter itself as ``administrative'' shows that the underlying
statutory provisions have no place in the applicable SIP other than
with the demonstration of ``necessary assurances.'' Our conclusion that
the statutes submitted in support of the original chapter were
superseded upon our approval of the revised chapter is consistent with
this understanding of the inherent connection between the ``necessary
assurances'' demonstration in the SIP and the supporting statutory
provisions.
    As described above, the statutes submitted by a State in support of
the ``necessary assurances'' demonstration of adequate legal authority
may be approved as part of the SIP (e.g., original California SIP) but
are not required to be part of the SIP. Where EPA has approved the
supporting statutes into the SIP, EPA views the statutes as
``nonregulatory'' provisions of the SIP. See, e.g., 62 FR 27968, at
27971 (May 22, 1997) (``Examples of nonregulatory SIP provisions
include, but are not limited to, the following subject matter: SIP
narratives * * * State Statutes * * *.''); and again in 72 FR 64158, at
64160 (November 15, 2007) (``EPA-approved non-regulatory control
measures include * * * State statutes * * * which have been submitted
for inclusion in the SIP by the State. * * * Examples of EPA-approved
documents and materials associated with the SIP include, * * * State
Statutes submitted for the purposes of demonstrating legal authority; *
* *.''). ARB's and EPA's description of the revised legal authority
chapter of the California SIP as ``administrative'' is consistent with
the idea that even if the supporting statutes had been approved into
the SIP in 1980 (which they were not), EPA would have categorized the
statutes as ``nonregulatory.''
    The statutes are considered ``nonregulatory'' because statutes that
provide State or local administrative agencies with the authority to
establish regulatory requirements do not in themselves establish the
requirements. Rather, the rules promulgated under the relevant
authorities establish the requirements. In this instance, such rules
have included permitting rules that were adopted by the individual
county-based air districts in San Joaquin Valley (and later by the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District) exempting
agricultural sources, that were approved by EPA as part of the San
Joaquin Valley portion of the California SIP, and that continued in
effect in the SIP until 2004, notwithstanding the supersession of the
underlying statutory provision back in 1980. Hence, EPA's description
of the Agency's approval of the revised legal authority chapter as
being ``nonsignificant,'' because no new requirements would be imposed
nor would any requirements be withdrawn, is correct. Such requirements
are not established in the statutes providing the legal authorities,
but are found in the approved State and local district rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The District refers to 40 CFR 52.220(b)(12)(i) as an
instance where California removed certain sections of the CH&SC
approved in 1972 from the California SIP. California did not remove
these CH&SC sections; EPA did so under the error correction
authority of CAA section 110(k)(6). See 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004). We now recognize that we did not need to do so, since all of
the statutory provisions submitted in support of the original legal
authority chapter of the SIP had been superseded by our approval of
the revised legal authority chapter in 1980. See response to comment
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #5: The District states that the agricultural permitting
exemption was removed from State law in 2003 as it relates to major
sources, but states that the change in State law was never submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision and thus the agricultural permitting exemption
remains in the SIP.
    Response #5: We agree that the State law replacing the full
agricultural permitting exemption with a limited permitting exemption
for certain minor agricultural sources (Senate Bill 700) has never been
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. However, as we clarify through this
final rule, California did not need to submit SB 700 to EPA as a SIP
revision to remove the agricultural permitting exemption from the SIP
because it was removed from the California SIP upon the effective date
of our 1980 final rule approving the State's revision to the legal
authority chapter of the California SIP.
    Comment #6: The District contends that Clean Air Act section
301(a)(1) does not authorize EPA to unilaterally amend the agricultural
exemption out of the California SIP.
    Response #6: We agree that CAA section 301(a)(1) does not authorize
EPA to unilaterally amend the SIP. To amend the SIP, EPA is authorized
to take action under CAA section 110. For instance, our action in 1980
to approve California's revised legal authority chapter of the
California SIP was an action taken by EPA under section 110. We do not
view our action today as amending the California SIP. Our view as
expressed in the proposed rule and in responses to comments above is
that we are simply clarifying the effect of a previous rulemaking. We
are taking this action to avoid further confusion as to the current
status of the statutory provisions (such as the agricultural permitting
exemption) submitted as part of the original 1972 California SIP.
    CAA section 301(a) authorizes EPA to prescribe such regulations as
are necessary to carry out the Agency's functions under the CAA. One of
the basic functions of the Agency under the CAA is to take actions on
SIPs and SIP revisions (See section 110(k)), and in doing so, we are
responsible for ensuring that the regulatory effect of our action is
clearly set forth through rules published in the Federal Register and
that our codification of SIP approvals in 40 CFR part 52 reasonably
identifies the approved provisions.
    In this instance, we have discovered that our 1979 proposed rule
and 1980 final rule approving a revision to the California SIP did not
clearly identify the materials being superseded, and we appropriately
rely upon our rulemaking authority under CAA section 301(a) to clarify
the superseding effect of our 1980 action. In so doing, we are not
amending the California SIP, but merely clarifying what the current SIP
includes, or to be more specific, what the current SIP does not
include.
    Comment #7: Dairy Cares notes that, in 2004, EPA undertook a
rulemaking to remove from the SIP several specific statutes that were
included in the 1972 original California SIP, and claims that such
action would have been unnecessary if the statutory provision submitted
with the original California SIP had been superseded by EPA's approval
action on the revised legal authority chapter of the California SIP in
1980. Dairy Cares asserts that EPA's action in 2004 reveals the
Agency's understanding then that the statutory provisions from the
original California SIP remain in the SIP, and concludes that there is
simply no way to reconcile EPA's actions in 2004 with the action it now
proposes as they are entirely inconsistent.
    Response #7: In our January 29, 2010 proposed rule, we recognize
that our 2004 rulemaking (69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004) removed
certain variance-related statutory provisions from the California SIP.
See 75 FR at 4742, at 4744. We agree that our conclusion in the current
rulemaking that all of the statutory provisions submitted in connection
with the legal

authority chapter of the original California SIP were superseded in
1980 is not consistent with our 2004 rulemaking. We also agree that, if
all of the statutory provisions in question had been superseded in
1980, then removal of the specific variance-related provisions in 2004
would not have been necessary.
    Upon review of the 2004 rulemaking, however, we find no evidence of
the type of detailed research into the contents of the California SIP
that was conducted for this rulemaking. Furthermore, we believe that
the Agency's own mistaken understanding in 2004 of the status of the
variance-related statutory provisions simply highlights the need for
the Agency to take some action, such as the one taken today, to clarify
the status of the statutory provisions and other legal documents
submitted in support of the legal authority chapter of the original
California SIP. As described above, we have the authority under CAA
section 301(a) to identify the superseding effect of a prior rulemaking
(in this case, a rulemaking in 1980) and to thereby clarify the
contents of the current California SIP.

III. Final Action

    None of the comments have caused us to modify our proposed rule,
and thus, under CAA section 301(a)(1) and for the reasons discussed in
the proposed rule and in this final rule, EPA is taking final action to
clarify that the statutory provisions and other legal documents
approved in connection with the legal authority chapter of the original
1972 California SIP were superseded in the California SIP by EPA's
approval of a revised legal authority chapter in 1980 (and codified at
40 CFR 52.220(c)(48)). We are memorializing our interpretation of the
effect of the 1980 final rule by revising the relevant provision in 40
CFR 52.220 accordingly.

IV. 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 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 clarifies the effect of a previous
approval by EPA of a State submittal 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. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 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 July 19, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(12)(i) to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (12) * * *
    (i) Previously approved on May 31, 1972 in paragraph (b) and
deleted without replacement, effective September 10, 1980, chapter 7
(``Legal Considerations'') of part I (``State General Plan'') of the
plan submitted on February 21, 1972, and all of the statutory
provisions and other legal documents contained in appendix II (``State
Statutes and other Legal Documents Pertinent to Air Pollution Control
in California'') to chapter 7.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-11867 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10205]
[DOCID:fr07mr07-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2778-035]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Availability of Draft
Environmental Assessment

February 27, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR
Part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 F.R. 47897]), the Office of Energy
Projects staff (staff) reviewed the application for amendment of
license for the Shoshone Falls Project, located on the Snake River,
Jerome and Twin Falls Counties, Idaho, and prepared a draft
environmental assessment (DEA) for the project. Within the project
boundary, 1.97 acres of lands are owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management. In this DEA, staff analyzes the potential environmental
effects of the proposed amendment of license and concludes that the
proposal would not constitute a major federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the DEA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the e-Library link. Enter the docket

number (P-2778) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (for TTY).
    Any comments should be filed by March 30, 2007, and should be
addressed to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please reference Shoshone Falls
Project No. 2778-035, on all comments. For further information on this
notice, please contact Robert Fletcher at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the e-Filing link.

The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3967 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P