[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38830-38831]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13636]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0255; FRL-10011-23-Region 1]

 Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Control of Particulate Matter
and Visible Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Connecticut. This revision amends a Connecticut air-quality
regulation for controlling particulate matter (PM) and visible
emissions. The intended effect of this action is to define the process
industries and activities to which this regulation applies, and to make
technical corrections to an emission-rate calculation method. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0255 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regulation
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On October 19, 2018, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (DEEP) submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for amendments to Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-18, Control of particulate matter
(PM) and visible emissions. The revision consists of amendments to
subsections (c), (f), and (j) to define the process industries and
activities to which this regulation applies, to make technical
corrections to an emission-rate calculation method, and to make minor,
non-substantive modifications in regulatory language.

II. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's Regulation

Background

    Connecticut first adopted regulations to limit PM and visible
emissions from stationary sources, including among other sources,
electric generating units (EGUs) and boilers, in the early 1970s. In
1972, EPA approved ``Control of particulate emissions,'' into the
Connecticut SIP. See 37 FR 10842. That regulation has since been
recodified as Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section
22a-174-18.
    The most recent amendments to section 22a-174-18 were submitted by
CT DEEP on December 1, 2004 and approved into the Connecticut SIP on
July 16, 2014. See 79 FR 41427. Those amendments updated the State's
visible emissions standards. Details of the State's December 2004 SIP
submittal and the rationale for EPA's approval are explained in the
August 15, 2013, notice proposed of rulemaking (NPRM). See 78 FR 49701.
See Section II of that NPRM for a brief discussion of the relationships
among ``visible emissions,'' ``opacity'' and ``particulate matter.''

2018 Amendments to RCSA Section 22a-174-18

    On October 19, 2018, Connecticut submitted to EPA revisions to RCSA
section 22a-174-18. These revisions, which became effective in
Connecticut on August 3, 2018, consist of revisions to subsections (c),
(f), and (j) of RCSA section 22a-174-18 regarding the control of
emissions of particulate matter from process industries. The revisions
modify language and correct errors in the State's 2004 revision of RCSA
section 22a-174-18, which was approved by EPA on July 16, 2014. See 79
FR 41427.
    Specifically, the revisions clarify the types of industrial
activities regulated by subsection (f) by adding a definition of
``process industry'' in subsection (f).\1\ The revisions also simplify
the method used in subsection (f) to calculate the allowable emission
rate for process industries, clarify in subsection (c) that process
industries subject to subsection (f) are not subject to subsection (c),
and make minor, non-substantive changes in language to subsection
(j).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The definition of ``process industry'' is given as ``a
business that is primarily concerned with processing of bulk
material into other products.'' The revisions also define ``bulk
material'' as dry material, such as, but not limited to, ore, coal,
cereal, wood, sand, gravel or stone in loose, bulk form.''
    \2\ We note that as a matter of state law, Connecticut has also
removed certain language from subsections (j)(1) and (2) in order to
conform state law to the existing SIP. The removal of such language
as a matter of state law has no impact on the Connecticut SIP or
this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that Connecticut's revisions to RCSA section
22a-174-18 are clarifications and corrections that improve the State's
ability to implement the regulation. In addition, the submitted
revisions to subsection (j) are non-substantive (e.g., changing
``subdivision'' to ``subsection''). These revisions do not

result in any substantive change to the EPA-approved subsection (j).
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve into the Connecticut SIP the
revisions to subsections (c), (f), and (j) that CT DEEP submitted on
October 19, 2018.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the Connecticut
SIP, the revisions to subsections (c), (f), and (j) of RCSA section
22a-174-18, Control of Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions,
effective on August 3, 2018, submitted to EPA on October 19, 2018.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this
proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into the Connecticut SIP the Connecticut regulation
referenced in Section III above. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 18, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2020-13636 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65840-65842]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 63, 80, 85, 86, 122, 123, and 412

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0313; EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0816; EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813; FRL-
9747-7]

Section 610 Reviews of Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements; NESHAP: Reinforced
Plastic Composites Production; and NPDES Permit Regulation and Effluent
Limitations Guidelines Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for comments on three Regulatory Flexibility Act
section 610 Reviews.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that EPA will review three regulatory
actions pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Those three actions are: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (Heavy-Duty 610
Review); NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production (Plastics 610
Review); and NPDES Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations
Guidelines Standards for CAFOs (CAFO 610 Review). As part of this
review, EPA will consider and solicit comments on the following
factors: The continued need for the rules; the nature of complaints or
comments received concerning the rules; the complexity of the rules;
the extent to which the rules overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
other Federal, State, or local government rules; and the degree to
which the technology, economic conditions or other factors have changed
in areas affected by the rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0313 (for the Heavy-Duty 610 Review), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0816 (for the Plastics 610 Review), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2012-0813 (for the CAFO 610 Review), by one of the following
methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0313 (for the Heavy
Duty 610 Review), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0816 (for the Plastics
610 Review), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813 (for the CAFO 610
Review); Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0313 (for the
Heavy Duty 610 Review), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0816 (for the
Plastics 610 Review), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813 (for the
CAFO 610 Review); Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0313 (for the Heavy Duty 610 Review), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0816 (for the Plastics 610 Review), or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2012-0813 (for the CAFO 610 Review). The EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center--Public
Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The general
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER> and
for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning EPA's
610 Review related to Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements, please contact Tad
Wysor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and
Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood
Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
(734) 214-4816; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
concerning EPA's 610 Review related to NESHAP: Reinforced Plastic
Composites Production, please contact Kim Teal, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode D243-
04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions concerning EPA's 610 Review related to NPDES Permit
Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines Standards for CAFOs,
please contact Hema Subramanian, Office of Wastewater Management,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mailcode
4203M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that an
agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities (SISNOSE). EPA undertakes section 610 reviews to decide
whether the agency should continue a rule unchanged, amend it, or
withdraw it. We encourage small entities to provide comments on the
need to change these rules, and in particular, how the rules could be
made clearer, more effective, or if there is need to remove conflicting
or overlapping requirements with other Federal or State regulations.

II. Section 610 Review of Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and
Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements

    On January 18, 2001, EPA established new exhaust emission standards
for heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles, and new quality standards
for highway diesel fuel (66 FR 5002). As part of this program, new
emission standards took effect in model year 2007, and applied to
heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. These standards are based on
the use of high-efficiency catalytic exhaust emission control devices
or comparably effective advanced technologies. Because these devices
are damaged by sulfur, the rule also reduced the level of sulfur in
highway diesel fuel significantly by mid-2006. The program provided
substantial flexibility for refiners, especially small refiners, and
for manufacturers of engines and vehicles. For example, the program
allowed small refiners with simultaneous gasoline sulfur requirements
to sequence their sulfur-reduction technology upgrades in the most
advantageous way, and also provided general hardship provisions to
allow case-by-case relief. While EPA took steps to evaluate and
mitigate impacts on small entities as part of the promulgation of this
rule, this notice announces that EPA will review the Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements rule pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C.

610). As part of this review, EPA will consider and solicit comments on
the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the
nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the
complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government
rules; and (5) the degree to which the technology, economic conditions
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
Comments must be received within 60 days of this notice. In submitting
comments, please reference Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0313 and follow
the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
The results of EPA's review will be summarized in a report and placed
in the rulemaking docket referenced above. This docket can be accessed
at www.regulations.gov.

III. Section 610 Review of National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Reinforced Plastic Composites Production

    The EPA promulgated NESHAP for reinforced plastic composites
production (68 FR 19375) on April 21, 2003. The final rule (40 CFR part
63, subpart WWWW) includes standards for both new and existing sources
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), as well as monitoring, performance
testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements related to those
standards. The NESHAP regulate production and ancillary processes used
to manufacture products with thermoset resins and gel coats. The final
standards contain a HAP emissions threshold that distinguishes between
sources that typically can meet the HAP emissions limits using
pollution prevention, and those that must use add-on controls.
    Based on SBA size definitions and reported sales and employment
data, we identified 279 of the 357 companies owning reinforced plastic
composites facilities as small businesses. We also performed an
economic impact analysis (EIA) that indicated that 12 percent of
facilities owned by small business were at risk of closure because of
the final rule, and a SBREFA panel recommended that EPA provide special
flexibility to these companies. Provisions to reduce the adverse impact
on small business, including minimized reporting and recordkeeping
requirements and establishing separate floors for specialty products,
were incorporated into the final rule.
    This notice announces that EPA will review this action pursuant to
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610). As part
of this review, EPA will consider and solicit comments on the following
factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the nature of
complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the complexity
of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or
conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government rules; and (5)
the degree to which the technology, economic conditions or other
factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. Comments must be
received within 60 days of this notice. In submitting comments, please
reference Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0816 and follow the
instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document. The
results of EPA's review will be summarized in a report and placed in
the rulemaking docket referenced above. This docket can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov.

IV. Section 610 Review of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)

    EPA promulgated revised regulations for CAFOs on February 12, 2003
(68 FR 7175). The ``2003 CAFO Rule'' expanded the number of operations
covered by the CAFO regulations and included requirements to address
the land application of manure from CAFOs. The 2003 CAFO Rule required
all CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage. The EPA developed a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for the 2003 CAFO Rule. In the
2003 CAFO Rule, the EPA took several steps to minimize its impacts on
small businesses, including regulatory revisions designed to focus on
the largest producers, eliminating the ``mixed'' animal calculation for
operations with more than a single animal type for determining which
AFOs are CAFOs, raising the duck threshold for dry manure handling duck
operations, and adopting a dry-litter chicken threshold higher than
proposed.
    Subsequently, a series of court decisions based on legal challenges
to the rulemaking have limited the requirement for NPDES permit
coverage specifically to CAFOs that discharge. In response to these
court decisions, the EPA made revisions to the CAFO regulations in 2008
(73 FR 70418) and 2012 (77 FR 44494). In promulgating the 2008
regulatory revision, the EPA certified that the 2008 rule would not
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. In promulgating the 2012 regulatory revision, the 2012
rule was not subject to the RFA because the RFA applies only to rules
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute, and the 2012
rule was not subject to notice and comment requirements. Both rules
reduced the potential impact of the EPA's CAFO regulations on small
entities by reducing the universe of CAFOs that must apply for NPDES
permits. This notice announces that EPA will review this action
pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
610). As part of this review, EPA will consider and solicit comments on
the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the
nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the
complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government
rules; and (5) the degree to which the technology, economic conditions
or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
Comments must be received within 60 days of this notice. In submitting
comments, please reference Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0813 and
follow the instructions provided in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. The results of EPA's review will be summarized in a report
and placed in the rulemaking docket referenced above. This docket can
be accessed at www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: October 25, 2012.
Alexander Cristofaro,
Director, Office of Regulatory Policy and Management.
[FR Doc. 2012-26794 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41480-41481]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69934; File No. SR-C2-2013-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to the Correction of a Typographical Error in Rule 6.15.08

July 3, 2013.
    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 July 2, 2013, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to correct an administrative
typographical error in Rule 6.15.08, ``Obvious Error and Catastrophic
Errors.'' The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), 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 make an administrative change to correct
an inadvertent typographical error to Exchange Rule 6.15.08. The
Exchange proposes to make the proposed change so the text properly
reflects the intention and practice of Rule 6.15.08. The administrative
changes and typographical error are explained below.
    The Exchange recently filed a rule change, SR-C2-2013-013 to, among
other things, amend the Exchange's Obvious and Catastrophic Error
rules.\3\ As part of that filing, an inadvertent typographical error
was made in the changes made to Rule 6.15.08. The error can be found in
the third sentence in .08 of the Interpretations and Policies section
of Rule 6.15. In the last clause of the third section, the word
``transition'' was used; however, the intended word was
``transaction.'' The Exchange is now proposing to amend this error to
more accurately describe the intention and practice of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69345 (April 8,
2013), 78 FR 21985 (April 12, 2013) (order approving SR-CBOE-2012-
064 [sic] as modified by Amendments 1 and 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ 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) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule change is consistent with these
provisions as it will more accurately describe the practice of the
Exchange in the Exchange Rulebook. There are no substantive changes
being made in the proposed rule change, and thus, the current practices
of the Exchange will remain the same. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is necessary to accurately describe to Exchange
Trading Permit Holders how Obvious and Catastrophic Errors described in
Rule 06.15.08 operate on the Exchange.

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

    C2 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. The Exchange does not believe
the proposed rule change imposes any burden on intramarket competition
because it applies to all Trading Permit Holders. Additionally, the
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition as it merely attempting to correct a
typographical error. There will be no substantive changes to the
Exchange's operations nor its rules.

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:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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 \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-C2-2013-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-024. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site 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-C2-2013-024 and should be
submitted on or before July 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16533 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65877-65882]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25780]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0147; FRL-9902-19-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Atlanta,
Georgia 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reasonable Further
Progress Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on October 21,
2009, to address the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan
requirements for the Atlanta, Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (hereafter
referred to as the ``Atlanta Area'' or ``the Area''). The Atlanta Area
is comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb,
Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall,
Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton Counties in
Georgia. EPA is also finding adequate the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NOx) that were included in Georgia's RFP plan. Further, EPA is
approving these MVEB. EPA is also responding to comments received on
the Agency's May 29, 2013, direct final rulemaking to approve the RFP
plan requirements for the Atlanta Area.

DATES: This rule is effective on December 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0147. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sara Waterson of the Regulatory
Development Section, in the Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sara Waterson can be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's October 21, 2009,
SIP revision to meet RFP plan \1\ requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for the Atlanta Area.\2\ The RFP plan demonstrates that,
during the period of 2002 through 2008, NOX emissions will
be reduced by at least 15 percent for the 13-County portion \3\ of the
Atlanta Area (hereafter referred to as the ``13-County Area'') and VOC
emissions will be reduced by at least 15 percent for the seven-county
portion \4\ of the Atlanta Area (hereafter referred to as the ``7-
County Area''). As part of the RFP, EPA is approving the 2008 VOC MVEB
and the 2008 NOX MVEB, which were included in the October
21, 2009, RFP plan for the Atlanta Area. EPA is taking this action
because it is consistent with CAA requirements for RFP. The MVEB for
the Atlanta Area, expressed in tons per day (tpd), are provided in
Table 1 below. Through this action, EPA is also finding adequate the
MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes for the 1997 8-hour
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the plan to demonstrate
reasonable further progress is known as the RFP plan; whereas the
plan to demonstrate reasonable further progress for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS is known as the Rate-of-Progress (ROP) plan.
    \2\ Georgia previously submitted an ROP plan (also referred to
as the 15 Percent VOC Plan) for the portion of the Atlanta Area that
was previously designated nonattainment for the former 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA approved Georgia's ROP plan for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Atlanta Area on April 26, 1999. See 64 FR 20196.
    \3\ The 13-County portion is comprised of the counties
designated nonattainment in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area:
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. See 56 FR 56694,
November 6, 1991.
    \4\ Seven additional ``ring'' counties were added to the
original 1-hour ozone nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment designations. These additional counties are: Barrow,
Bartow, Carroll, Hall, Newton, Spalding, and Walton. See 69 FR
23857, April 30, 2004.

                       Table 1--MVEB for the 1997
                        8-Hour Ozone Atlanta Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              VOC              NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        2008 20-County MVEB (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................          171.83           272.67
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more detailed information on the RFP plan, please see the
direct final rulemaking published on May 29, 2013, at 78 FR 32135.

II. Background

A. General Background

    The Atlanta Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (effective June 15, 2004), using 2001-
2003 ambient air quality data. See 69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004
(codified at 40 CFR 81.311). The Atlanta Area is comprised of the 13
counties of the former 1-hour ozone nonattainment area plus seven
additional ``ring'' counties. On June 23, 2011, EPA determined that the
Atlanta Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 76 FR 36873. As
a result of the determination of attainment, the requirements for the
Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonable
available control measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS were suspended. Despite the determination of attainment,
Georgia opted to leave its previously submitted SIP submission related
to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS before EPA for
action. Georgia submitted its RFP plan, as well as two additional SIP
revisions under a separate cover letter, on October 21, 2009, related
to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Atlanta Area.
Today's rulemaking is approving only the RFP plan submittal, including
the associated MVEB. On May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32135), EPA published a
direct final rule approving Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP submission
addressing the RFP plan requirements, including NOX and VOC

MVEB, for the Atlanta Area. EPA published an accompanying proposed
approval in the event that comments were received such that the direct
final rule needed to be withdrawn. Specifically, in the direct final
rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were received by June 28,
2013, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect, but that the
proposed rule would still remain in effect and that an additional
public comment period would not be instituted if EPA could sufficiently
address any comments received on the direct final rulemaking. On June
28, 2013, EPA received comments from a single commenter and, therefore,
EPA withdrew the direct final rule. EPA is now taking action to approve
Georgia's October 21, 2009, SIP revision as it relates to the RFP plan
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. Background for Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Requirements for the 1-Hour
Ozone NAAQS

    Because Atlanta was classified as a ``serious'' nonattainment area
under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Georgia was required to develop a SIP to
reduce emissions of VOC in the 13-County Atlanta 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area by 15 percent from 1990 to 1996. This plan, also
known as Georgia's ROP plan SIP or the 15 Percent VOC Plan, was
approved on April 26, 1999. See 64 FR 20186.
    For the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA also requires post-1996
emission reductions of VOC and/or NOX totaling 3 percent per
year, averaged over each consecutive three-year period beginning in
1996 and continuing through the attainment date. Georgia chose to rely
solely on NOX emission reductions in its post-1996 ROP SIP
(the 9 Percent Plan). This plan was required to describe how Georgia
would achieve RFP towards attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS between 1996
and 1999, the attainment deadline for serious nonattainment areas.
Georgia's 9 Percent Plan was approved on March 19, 1999. See 64 FR
13348.
    On September 26, 2003, EPA re-classified the 13-county Atlanta 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area to ``severe.'' See 68 FR 55469. Among
other requirements, this reclassification required submission of a
severe area post-1999 ROP SIP. Georgia submitted the post-1999 ROP SIP
on December 24, 2003. The Atlanta severe area post-1999 ROP SIP
contained a description of how the 3 percent per year reductions in
ozone precursor emissions, required over the period from November 15,
1999, through November 15, 2004, would be achieved. It also contained
MVEB for the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA approved
Georgia's post-1999 ROP SIP for the Atlanta Area on July 19, 2004 (69
FR 42880). EPA's approval of Georgia's post-1999 ROP SIP for the
Atlanta Area completed the State's ROP obligation for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.

C. Background for RFP Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72
FR 31727), EPA published a rule entitled ``Final Rule To Implement the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule
To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New
Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply
in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline'' (hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule).
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's Phase 2 Rule \5\ require a
state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that is classified
as moderate, to submit an emissions inventory and a RFP plan to show
how the state will reduce emissions of VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ RFP regulations are at 40 CFR 51.910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, in ozone nonattainment areas with air quality
classified as ``moderate'' or worse for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
the RFP \6\ requirement prescribes emission reductions from the
baseline totaling 15 percent within six years of the base year (i.e.,
by the end of 2008). Per 40 CFR part 51.910(a)(1)(iii), moderate and
higher classification areas of which a portion has an approved 1-hour
ozone 15 Percent VOC Plan can choose to treat the nonattainment area as
two parts, each with a separate RFP target, and may substitute
reductions in NOX for VOC in the sub-area with the approved
15 Percent Plan. The 15-percent reduction for the sub-area without an
approved 1-hour ozone 15 Percent VOC Plan, however, must be achieved
entirely through VOC reductions. As noted previously, seven additional
``ring'' counties were added to the original 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Georgia
relied solely on NOX emission reductions for the 13-County
portion of the Atlanta Area with an approved 15 Percent VOC Plan and
relied solely on VOC reductions for the seven ``ring'' counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), RFP plans must include
contingency measures that will take effect without further action by
the State or EPA, which includes additional controls that would be
implemented if the Area fails to reach the RFP milestones. While the
CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions
reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that
implementation of these contingency measures would provide
additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted
base year inventory in the year following the RFP milestone year
(i.e., in this case 2008). For more information on contingency
measures please see the April 16, 1992, General Preamble (57 FR
13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005, Phase 2 8-hour ozone
standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). Finally, RFP
plans must also include a MVEB for the precursors for which the plan
is developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

    As noted, EPA received comments from a single commenter. A summary
of the comments received and EPA's response is provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that ``EPA cannot approve
Georgia's RFP plan until the measures which it relies upon can provide
measurable and creditable reductions.'' Specifically, the Commenter
asserts that Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(jjj) (``Rule (jjj)'') serves
as the primary basis for achieving more stringent limits on the amount
of NOX emitted by coal-fired electrical power plants. The
Commenter believes that because Rule (jjj) does not require maximum
heat input for each subject unit, that the rule allows for significant
variability in the legally-allowable total amount of NOX
emitted, and as such, emissions reductions associated with this rule
are not creditable. The Commenter also asserts that since each coal-
fired power plant's ``source-specific alternative emission limits''
were determined using only one point of reference, those limits may not
be representative of the unit's actual emissions at later points in
time. Finally, the Commenter claims that title V permits for Georgia
coal-fire electrical power plants do not contain enforceable heat input
limits.
    Response 1: The Commenter's assertion that the Rule (jjj) measures
relied on as part of the Georgia RFP plan do not provide for measurable
and creditable reductions is incorrect. EPA notes that the Rule (jjj)
and the title V permit requirements cited by Commenter are specific to
point sources, however, the RFP plan's overall 15 percent reduction
from the 2008 adjusted base year emissions inventory may come from any
emission source sector (i.e., point, area, nonroad, or mobile
emissions), and Georgia projected the majority of its reductions to be
from on-road and non-road mobile emissions. Notwithstanding the
relatively small contribution of the Rule (jjj) emission reductions to
the RFP plan's reductions, the emission reductions associated with Rule
(jjj) are creditable in the RFP plan since the rule

is a legally enforceable SIP provision and, as described in the
proposed rule, EPA finds the methodology used by GA EPD to estimate the
emission reductions from Rule (jjj) to be appropriate. See 78 FR 32135,
32138-142. Further, because the six-year RFP plan period has already
occurred, EPA has been able to review the Agency's Acid Rain database
\7\ and verify that the three sources subject to Rule (jjj) in the
State did reduce emissions by the quantity estimated in the RFP plan
submittal. The actual NOX emission reductions from May
through September 2002 to the comparable period in 2008 are consistent
with these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA notes that the commenter does not explain why a
maximum heat input limit \8\ would be relevant to this submittal. While
the maximum heat input would be relevant in a calculation of allowable
emissions, the emissions reductions estimates for purposes of an RFP
plan may be based on the expected actual emissions from the facility on
a typical summer day.\9\ There is no inherent connection between the
necessary data used to prepare the RFP plan submittal and the maximum
heat input allowed. The maximum heat input, which is a measure of the
maximum hourly capacity of a unit to burn fuel, is not appropriate for
calculating expected actual emissions because it fails to take into
account the expected operation of the emission sources. For instance,
many of the coal-fired power plants referenced by the commenter
typically operate somewhat below their maximum heat input rate
depending on age and condition of the boiler. Further, most units do
not operate continuously, so utilization may also be relevant to an
expected actual emission projection. Consequently, the typical summer
day emission projections employed in Georgia's RFP plan, which are a
function of total summer heat input and projected actual operating
hours, provide a more appropriate basis for the emissions calculations
included with the RFP plan being approved through this notice. As noted
above, EPA has also reviewed these projected emission reductions with
the actual emission reductions achieved during the RFP plan period and
found them to be consistent with the plan's projected emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The maximum heat input is a measure of the maximum hourly
capacity of a unit to burn fuel. Generally, this is the maximum rate
for the design of the boiler, which typically represents the
physical limitation of the boiler.
    \9\ The General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 describes in relevant part
EPA's basis for reliance upon the ``typical summer day'' approach
for purposes of projecting expected actual emissions. See 57 FR
13498, 13507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter stated ``[w]ith respect to the measures
meant to address NOX emissions from EGU's, EPA cannot
approve Rule (jjj) unless there are maximum heat inputs incorporated
into the rule.''
    Response 2: As the Commenter noted, EPA has already approved Rule
(jjj). See 64 FR 67491 and 74 FR 62249. This rulemaking does not
contemplate action on Rule (jjj) and thus this comment regarding the
approvability is outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve an October 21, 2009, SIP
revision to meet the RFP requirements for the Atlanta Area for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving the NOX
and VOC MVEB for the Atlanta Area that were included in Georgia's RFP
plan. These budgets will be available for use by the transportation
conformity partners on November 4, 2013. Furthermore, EPA is finding
the budgets adequate. These actions are being taken pursuant to section
110 of the CAA.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 3, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 21, 2013.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF PLANS

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

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

Subpart II--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e), is amended by revising the table in paragraph (e)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      date/effective     EPA approval date      Explanation
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)      Atlanta             11/15/93 and        3/18/99, 4/26/99    ..................
 lane on I-85 from Chamblee-       Metropolitan Area.  amended on 6/17/    and 11/5/09.
 Tucker Road to State Road 316.                        96 and 2/5/10.
 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane
 on I-85 from Chamblee-Tucker
 Road to State Road 316.
Clean Fuel Vehicles Revolving     Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 Loan Program.                     Metropolitan Area.
Regional Commute Options Program  Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 and HOV Marketing Program.        Metropolitan Area.
HOV lanes on I-75 and I-85......  Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
                                   Metropolitan Area.
Two Park and Ride Lots: Rockdale  Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 County-Sigman at I-20 and         Metropolitan Area.
 Douglas County-Chapel Hill at I-
 20.
MARTA Express Bus routes (15      Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 buses).                           Metropolitan Area.
Signal preemption for MARTA       Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 routes 15 and 23.
Improve and expand service on     Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 MARTA's existing routes in        Metropolitan Area.
 southeast DeKalb County.
Acquisition of clean fuel buses   Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 for MARTA and Cobb County         Metropolitan Area.
 Transit.
ATMS/Incident Management Program  Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 on I-75/I-85 inside I-285 and     Metropolitan Area.
 northern ARC of I-285 between I-
 75 and I-85.
Upgrading, coordination and       Atlanta             6/17/96...........  4/26/99.            ..................
 computerizing intersections.      Metropolitan Area.
[Reserved]
Atlantic Steel Transportation     Atlanta             3/29/00...........  8/28/00.            ..................
 Control Measure.                  Metropolitan Area.
Procedures for Testing and        Atlanta             7/31/00...........  7/10/01.            ..................
 Monitoring Sources of Air         Metropolitan Area.
 Pollutants.
Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance   Atlanta             9/20/00...........  7/10/01.            ..................
 Test Equipment, Procedures and    Metropolitan Area.
 Specifications.
Preemption Waiver Request for     Atlanta             5/31/00...........  2/22/02.            ..................
 Low-RVP, Low-Sulfur Gasoline      Metropolitan Area.
 Under Air Quality Control Rule
 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb).
Technical Amendment to the        Atlanta             11/9/01...........  2/22/02.            ..................
 Georgia Fuel Waiver Request of    Metropolitan Area.
 May 31, 2000.
Georgia's State Implementation    Atlanta             7/17/01...........  5/7/02.             ..................
 Plan for the Atlanta Ozone        Metropolitan Area.
 Nonattainment Area.
Post-1999 Rate of Progress Plan.  Atlanta             12/24/03..........  7/19/04, 69 FR      ..................
                                   Metropolitan Area.                      42884.
Severe Area Vehicle Miles         Atlanta 1-hour      6/30/04...........  6/14/05, 70 FR      ..................
 Traveled (VMT SIP) for the        ozone severe                            34358.
 Atlanta 1-hour severe ozone       nonattainment
 nonattainment area.               area.

Atlanta 1-hour ozone attainment   Atlanta severe 1-   2/1/05............  6/14/05, 70 FR      ..................
 area 2015 maintenance plan.       hour ozone                              34660.
                                   maintenance area.
Attainment Demonstration for the  Walker and Catoosa  12/31/04..........  8/26/05, 70 FR      ..................
 Chattanooga Early Action Area.    Counties.                               50199.
Attainment Demonstration for the  Columbia and        12/31/04..........  8/26/05, 70 FR      ..................
 Lower Savannah-Augusta Early      Richmond Counties.                      50195.
 Action Compact Area.
Alternative Fuel Refueling        Douglas County, GA  9/19/06...........  11/28/06, 71 FR     ..................
 Station/Park and Ride                                                     68743.
 Transportation Center, Project
 DO-AR-211 is removed.
Macon 8-hour Ozone Maintenance    Macon, GA           6/15/07...........  9/19/07, 72 FR      ..................
 Plan.                             encompassing a                          53432.
                                   portion of Monroe
                                   County.
Murray County 8-hour Ozone        Murray County.....  6/15/07...........  10/16/07, 72 FR     ..................
 Maintenance Plan.                                                         58538.
Atlanta Early Progress Plan.....  Barrow, Bartow,     1/12/07...........  2/20/08, 73 FR      ..................
                                   Carroll,                                9206.
                                   Cherokee,
                                   Clayton, Cobb,
                                   Coweta, DeKalb,
                                   Douglas, Fayette,
                                   Forsyth, Fulton,
                                   Gwinnett, Hall,
                                   Henry, Newton,
                                   Paulding,
                                   Rockdale,
                                   Spalding and
                                   Walton counties.
Rome; 1997 Fine Particulate       Floyd County......  10/27/2009........  1/12/12, 77 FR      ..................
 Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions                                           1873.
 Inventory.
Chattanooga; Fine Particulate     Catoosa and Walker  10/27/09..........  2/8/12; 77 FR       ..................
 Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions   Counties.                               6467.
 Inventory.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Georgia...........  10/13/2007........  2/6/2012, 77 FR     ..................
 Requirements for the 1997 8-                                              5706.
 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
 Quality Standards.
Atlanta 1997 Fine Particulate     Barrow, Bartow,     07/06/2010........  3/1/2012, 77 FR     ..................
 Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions   Carroll,                                12487.
 Inventory.                        Cherokee,
                                   Clayton, Cobb,
                                   Coweta, DeKalb,
                                   Douglas, Fayette,
                                   Forsyth, Fulton,
                                   Gwinnett, Hall,
                                   Henry, Newton,
                                   Paulding,
                                   Rockdale,
                                   Spalding and
                                   Walton Counties
                                   in their
                                   entireties and
                                   portions of Heard
                                   and Putnam
                                   Counties.
Macon 1997 Fine Particulate       Bibb County and     8/17/2009.........  3/02/12, 77 FR      ..................
 Matter 2002 Base Year Emissions   Monroe County.                          12724.
 Inventory.
Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone 2002    Barrow, Bartow,     10/21/2009........  4/24/2012, 77 FR    ..................
 Base-Year Emissions Inventory.    Carroll,                                24399.
                                   Cherokee,
                                   Clayton, Cobb,
                                   Coweta, DeKalb,
                                   Douglas, Fayette,
                                   Forsyth, Fulton,
                                   Gwinnett, Hall,
                                   Henry, Newton,
                                   Paulding,
                                   Rockdale,
                                   Spalding and
                                   Walton Counties
                                   in their
                                   entireties.
Regional Haze Plan..............  Statewide.........  2/11/10...........  6/28/12, 77 FR      ..................
                                                                           38501.
Regional Haze Plan Supplement     Statewide.........  11/19/10..........  6/28/12, 77 FR      ..................
 (including BART and Reasonable                                            38501.
 Progress emissions limits).
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Georgia...........  7/23/2008.........  10/25/2012, 77 FR   With the exception
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                                65125.              of
 Particulate Matter National                                                                   110(a)(2)(D)(i).
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Georgia...........  10/21/2009........  10/25/2012, 77 FR   With the exception
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                                65125.              of
 Particulate Matter National                                                                   110(a)(2)(D)(i).
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Negative Declaration for Control  Atlanta 1997 8-     10/21/2009........  09/28/2013.         ..................
 of VOC Emissions from Reactor     Hour Ozone
 Processes and Distillation        Nonattainment
 Operations in Synthetic Organic   Area.
 Chemical Manufacturing Industry
 (SOCMI) EPA-450/4-91-031,
 August 1993.

Negative Declaration for Control  Atlanta 1997 8-     10/21/2009........  09/28/2013.         ..................
 of VOC Emissions from Equipment   Hour Ozone
 Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline   Nonattainment
 Processing Plants EPA-450/3-83-   Area.
 007, December 1983.
Negative Declaration for Control  Atlanta 1997 8-     10/21/2009........  09/28/2013.         ..................
 of VOC Leaks from Synthetic       Hour Ozone
 Organic Chemical Polymer and      Nonattainment
 Resin Manufacturing Equipment     Area.
 EPA-450/3-83-006, March 1984.
Negative Declaration for Control  Atlanta 1997 8-     10/21/2009........  09/28/2013.         ..................
 of VOC Emissions from Air         Hour Ozone
 Oxidation Processes in            Nonattainment
 Synthetic Organic Chemical        Area.
 Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI),
 EPA-450/3-84-015, December 1984.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  Georgia...........  7/23/2008.........  4/12/2013.........  Addressing element
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                                                    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
 Particulate Matter National                                                                   I) prong 3 only.
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure  110(a)(1) and (2)   10/21/2009........  4/12/2013.........  Addressing element
 Requirements for 2006 Fine        Infrastructure                                              110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I
 Particulate Matter National       Requirements for                                            I) prong 3 only.
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.    1997 Fine
                                   Particulate
                                   Matter National
                                   Ambient Air
                                   Quality Standards.
1997 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable      Atlanta 1997 8-     10/21/2009........  11/4/13.            ..................
 Further Progress Plan for the     Hour Ozone
 Atlanta Area.                     Nonattainment
                                   Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-25780 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:EDWARDS JOHN, AVIATION SAFETY ADVISORY SVCS; EDWARDS JOHN, AVIATION SAFETY ADVISORY SVCS


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17865-17868]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7968]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0731; FRL-9129-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Particulate Matter Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Wisconsin updated its state ambient air quality standards
rules to match the current Federal standards. The updates were made to
the particulate matter standards by adding fine particulate standards
and revoking the state's course particulate standards. EPA revised its
particulate matter standards in October 2006 by strengthening the 24-
hour fine particulate standard and revoking the annual standard for
course particulate. EPA is approving the revisions to the Wisconsin
State Implementation Plan (SIP) as requested by the state on September
11, 2009.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 7, 2010, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 10, 2010. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0731, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Michael Compher, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Michael Compher, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0731. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?
III. What are the environmental effects of this action?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Wisconsin requested a revision to its SIP on September 11, 2009.
The request is to update the particulate matter ambient air quality
standards. The particulate matter standards were revised to match the
2006 Federal standards. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised its
particulate matter ambient air quality standards, strengthening the 24-
hour fine particulate (PM2.5) standard and retaining the
annual PM2.5 standard. EPA also revoked the annual standard
for coarse particulate matter (PM10) because available
evidence did not suggest a link between long term PM10
exposure and health problems. The 24-hour PM10 standard
remains in place.

II. What is EPA's analysis of the revision?

    Wisconsin revised chapters NR 404 and 484 of the Wisconsin
Administration Code. Wisconsin added the definition of PM2.5
and the PM2.5 ambient air quality standards to its rules to
be consistent with current Federal standards. Wisconsin also removed
the annual PM10 standard.
    The revisions made by Wisconsin are in accordance with the current
Federal PM2.5 and PM10 standards. EPA
strengthened the particulate matter ambient air quality standards in
2006 to reflect the latest scientific data for protecting human health,
and Wisconsin has adopted the same standards to keep its ambient air
quality standards current with the Federal standards.

III. What are the environmental effects of this action?

    This action incorporates the Federal PM2.5 and
PM10 ambient air quality standards into the Wisconsin SIP,
including the more stringent standard for 24-hour PM2.5
standard. The current Federal standards are effective and enforceable
nationwide. The revisions add clarity for Wisconsin sources and
stakeholders, as it updates the PM10 standards and adds the
PM2.5 standards to the state rules.
    Particulate matter interferes with lung function when inhaled.
Exposure to particulates can cause heart and lung disease. Particulate
matter also aggravates asthma. Airborne particulate is the main source
of haze that causes a reduction in visibility. Particulate matter is
also deposited on the ground and in the water, changing nutrient and
chemical balances.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Wisconsin SIP. Wisconsin revised
chapters NR 404 and 484 of the Wisconsin Administration Code. In
chapter NR 404, the state removed the annual PM10 standard,
added the definition of PM2.5, and added the 2006
PM2.5 standards. Wisconsin incorporated by reference the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) monitoring requirements into chapter
NR 484 that correspond to the chapter NR 404 revisions. Specifically,
Wisconsin incorporated 40 CFR part 50 appendices K, L, and M and 40 CFR
part 53 by reference into chapter NR 484.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as

a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 7, 2010 without
further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by
May 10, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not
receive any comments, this action will be effective June 7, 2010.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: March 11, 2010.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (121) On September 11, 2009, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources submitted a State Implementation Plan revision request. The
state's ambient air quality standards were revised to match the 2006
Federal ambient air quality standards for particulate matter
(PM10 and PM2.5).
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code are incorporated by reference:
    (A) NR 404.02 Definitions. NR 404.02(4e) ``PM2.5'' as
published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, on September 30,
2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
    (B) NR 404.04 Ambient Air Quality Standards. NR 404.04(8)
``PM10: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARDS.'' and NR 404.04(9)
``PM2.5:
    PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STANDARDS'' as published in the Wisconsin
Administrative Register, on September 30, 2009, No. 645, effective
October 1, 2009.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) NR 484.03 Code of federal regulations. NR 484.03(5) in Table 1
as published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, on September 30,
2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
    (B) NR 484.04 Code of federal regulations appendices. NR 484.04(6),
(6g), and (6r) in Table 2, as published in the Wisconsin Administrative
Register,

on September 30, 2009, No. 645, effective October 1, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-7968 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 193 (Tuesday, October 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60380-60381]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25385]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FFP Project 92, LLC; Project No. 14276-002--Kentucky]

Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 11 Hydroelectric Project; Notice
of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.2010, provides
that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative
efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list
should contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the
judgment of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Kentucky State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory Council's
regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (54 U.S.C. 306108), to prepare a
Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places that could
be affected by issuance of a license for the proposed Kentucky River
Lock and Dam No. 11 Hydroelectric Project.
    The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission, the
Kentucky SHPO, and the Advisory Council, would satisfy the Commission's
section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried
out in accordance with the license until the license expires or is
terminated (36 CFR 800.13(e)). The Commission's responsibilities
pursuant to section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the
Programmatic Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in
consultation with certain parties listed below.
    FFP Project 92, LLC, as the applicant for Project No. 14276-002, is
invited to participate in consultations to develop the Programmatic
Agreement and to sign as a concurring party to the Programmatic
Agreement. For purposes of commenting on the Programmatic Agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for Project No. 14276-002 as
follows:

John Eddins, Advisory Council on Historic, Preservation, 401 F St. NW.,
Suite 308, Washington, DC 20001-2637.
Craig Potts, State Historic Preservation Officer, Kentucky Heritage
Council, 300 Washington St., Frankfurt, KY 40601.
Kary Stackelbeck, Manager, Site Protection Program, Kentucky Heritage
Council, 300 Washington St., Frankfurt, KY 40601.
Jennifer Ryall, Environmental Review Coordinator, Kentucky Heritage
Council, 300 Washington St., Frankfurt, KY 40601.
Jerry Graves, Executive Director, Kentucky River Authority, 627
Wilkinson Blvd., Frankfort, KY 40601.
David Hamilton, Environmental Engineer, Kentucky River Authority, 627
Wilkinson Blvd., Frankfort, KY 40601.
Lisa C. Baker, Acting THPO, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, Indians
in Oklahoma, P.O. Box 746, Tahlequah, OK 74465.
Ramya Swaminathan or Representative, Rye Development acting as Agent
for:

FFP Project 92, LLC, 745 Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111.
Kellie Doherty, Rye Development acting as Agent for: FFP Project 92,
LLC, 745 Atlantic Avenue, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02111.
Patricia Stallings, Senior Historian/Program Manager, Brockington and
Associates, Inc., 3850 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite 105, Norcross, GA
30092.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``eComment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866)
208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the project number (P-14276-002)
on the first page of the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on the motion.

    Dated: September 30, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25385 Filed 10-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P