Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837

The following two sentences that occur on pages 5, 43 and 55 of the
Response to Comments document (Document ID # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0078
in the docket) are incorrect and misleading and should be ignored:
“EPA notes that the Louisiana DEQ has agreed to cancel its stack
testing accreditation program (see Document ID
#EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0837-0072 in the docket) and in its place substitute
accreditation to ASTM D 7036-04.  Louisiana DEQ also agrees to recognize
third party accreditors such as the Stack Testing Accreditation
Council.”


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 57969]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO or notice); extension of
application submittal period.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is extending the application submittal period for its NOFO
for the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program (RCE Program)
published on July 6, 2022 from October 4, 2022 to October 11, 2022.

DATES: FRA extends the NOFO application period and applications are now
due by 5 p.m. ET on October 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information related to
this notice and the RCE Program, please contact Deborah Kobrin, Office
of Policy and Planning, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Room W33-311, Washington, DC 20590; email: or
telephone:202-420-1281.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA amends its NOFO for the Railroad
Crossing Elimination Grants Program published on July 6, 2022 (87 FR
40335) by extending the period for submitting applications to 5 p.m. ET
on October 11, 2022. The reason for the extension is the scheduled
downtime and cloud migration of Grants.gov, which will be offline from
September 23, 2022 through September 29, 2022.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Amitabha Bose,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-20475 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51609-51610]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0121]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before seeking OMB approval,
Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections. This document describes one collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted
to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590. Docket hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. You may call the docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also
submit comments electronically at www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Berning, Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-
131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Ms. Berning's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Driving 2013

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--NHTSA proposes to conduct
a study to estimate the prevalence of alcohol-, drug-, and alcohol-and-
drug-involved driving, primarily among nighttime weekend drivers, but
also daytime Friday drivers, on our Nation's roadways. A minimum of
7,500 drivers at various locations across the country will be
interviewed anonymously at the roadside to: (1) Determine the
prevalence of drivers at various BACs, and (2) determine the prevalence
of drivers with the presence of various (over-the-counter,
prescription, and illegal) drugs in their system. Trained survey teams
will obtain data on alcohol and drug use of drivers through passive
alcohol sensors (PASs), preliminary breath-test samples, oral fluid
samples, and, for a subset of the drivers, blood samples. Each driver
will be asked several questions regarding their general driving
behavior, alcohol use, drinking-and-driving behavior, drug use, and
drugged-driving behavior. Some demographic data will be recorded as
well.
    Data collection would take place over a six month period at 60
different locations across the United States, with five data collection
sites within each location for a total of 300 data collection sites.
Researchers would conduct surveys with at least 7,500 drivers. The
research team will consist of a survey manager, a licensed
phlebotomist, data collectors, and two off-duty law enforcement
officers. Law enforcement officers will wave vehicles into the survey
site, and then a data collector will ask the driver to participate in a
voluntary, anonymous, research survey.
    The survey includes questions about alcohol and drug use and
impaired driving, a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) breath test,
collection of an oral fluid specimen, and collection of a blood sample.
The results of the breath and biological samples will not be known to
the researchers on site. Breath alcohol test results will be downloaded
and analyzed later. Biological samples will be analyzed later at a
central laboratory by a trained toxicologist.
    Drivers must be at least age 16 to participate (18 years to provide
a blood sample), speak English or Spanish, not be in emotional or
physical distress, not be driving a commercial vehicle, and be able to
understand that they are being asked to voluntarily participate in a
confidential research study.
    A road sign will indicate ``Voluntary Survey Ahead.'' The team's
police officer will flag down the first available vehicle after the
data collector indicates that he/she is ready to commence data
collection. The data collector will invite the driver to participate in
a voluntary anonymous research survey and explain the details of the
data collection. The same survey questions as noted above will be used.
There will be a total of at least 7,500 subjects.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce
healthcare and other economic costs associated with motor vehicle
crashes. The agency's goal is to reduce the rate of fatalities in
alcohol-related (.08+ BAC) crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled, 0.45 in 2011 (the rate in 2006 was .50). NHTSA also has the
responsibility to reduce drug-involved driving. While much is known
about alcohol-involved driving, relatively little is known about drug-
involved driving associated with drivers having consumed psychoactive
drugs other than alcohol, alone and in combination with alcohol. This
study would significantly add to the body of knowledge about that
important issue, providing critical data on alcohol-, drug-, and
alcohol-and-drug-involved

drivers on the road. The alcohol use prevalence estimates among drivers
will be compared with previous National Roadside Surveys conducted in
1973, 1986, 1996, and 2007. The drug use prevalence estimates will be
compared with the results of the 2007 National Roadside Survey, the
first time these data were collected. The results of the study will be
used by NHTSA to help guide policy development and countermeasure
programs intended to reduce the risk on our highways presented by
impaired drivers.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed effort, the Contractor would collect data from
approximately 7,500 subjects. Data collection would take place over a
six month period at 60 different sites across the United States, with
five data collection sites within each location for a total of 300 data
collection locations.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that
participants will spend an average of 20 minutes each to complete the
survey, for a total of approximately 2,500 hours for the study
respondents. The respondents would not incur any reporting cost or
record keeping burden from the data collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: August 21, 2012.
Jeffrey P. Michael,
Associate Administrator for Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2012-20940 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13875-13877]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05227]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0687; FRL-9907-14-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; 2012 Los Angeles County State Implementation Plan for 2008
Lead Standard

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
implementation plan revision submitted by the State of California to
provide for attainment of the 2008 lead national ambient air quality
standard in the Los Angeles County nonattainment area. The submitted
SIP revision is the Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan--Los
Angeles County. Specifically, EPA is approving the emissions inventory,
attainment demonstration, the reasonably available control measures/
reasonably available control technology demonstration, reasonable
further progress demonstration, and contingency measures as meeting the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's implementing regulations
for the lead NAAQS.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action,
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0687, by one of the
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically on the www.regulations.gov Web site and in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., voluminous records, large maps, copyrighted material), and some
may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., Confidential
Business Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning
Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415)
947-4192<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA's Response
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Lead NAAQS

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA must establish national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants, including
lead. Lead is generally emitted in the form of particles, which end up
being deposited in water, soil, and dust. People may be exposed to lead
by inhaling it, or by ingesting lead-contaminated food, water, soil, or
dust. Once in the body, lead is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream
and can result in a broad range of adverse health effects. These
include damage to the central nervous system, cardiovascular function,
kidneys, immune system, and red blood cells. Children are particularly
vulnerable to lead exposure, in part because they are more likely to
ingest lead and in part because their still-developing bodies are more
sensitive to the effects of lead. The harmful effects to children's
developing nervous systems (including their brains) arising from lead
exposure may include IQ loss, poor academic achievement, long-term
learning disabilities, and an increased risk of delinquent behavior.
    EPA first established a lead standard in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms per
meter cubed ([micro]g/m\3\) as a quarterly average.\1\ Based on new
health and scientific data, EPA revised the federal lead standard to
0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and revised the averaging time for the standard on
October 15, 2008 (see 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008). A violation of
the standard occurs when ambient lead concentrations exceed 0.15 [mu]g/
m\3\ averaged over a 3-month rolling period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 43 FR 46246, October 5, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d) of the CAA. The CAA
generally requires EPA to complete the initial area designations
process within two years of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Sixteen areas were designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS,
effective December 31, 2010 (see 75 FR 71033). Based on ambient air
quality data for the years 2007-2009, a portion of Los Angeles County
(excluding the high desert areas, San Clemente and Santa Catalina
Islands) was identified as an area that did not meet the 2008 lead
NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For an exact description of the Los Angeles County lead
nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas are required to attain the revised lead standard as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the
date the nonattainment designation became effective. For the Los
Angeles County lead nonattainment area, this date is December 31, 2015.
    Attainment demonstration state implementation plans (SIPs) are due
18 months after the effective date of an area's designation. For the
Los Angeles County lead nonattainment area, the SIP was due June 30,
2012. These SIPs should include emissions inventories, a reasonable
further progress (RFP) demonstration, a reasonably available control
measures/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT)
demonstration, an attainment demonstration, and contingency measures.
Control measures for the 2008 lead NAAQS need to be in place as
expeditiously as practicable. In order for control measures to result
in three years of monitored clean data by the attainment date, lead
areas required to demonstrate attainment by December 31, 2015 should
have had all necessary controls in place no later than November 1,
2012.\3\ South Coast Rule 1420.1, ``Emissions Standard for Lead from
Large Lead-Acid Battery Recycling Facilities,'' was adopted by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or ``District'') on
November 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA will consider on a case-by-case basis the approvability
of attainment demonstration SIPs where control measures are
scheduled to be operational after November 1. An attainment SIP may
be approvable even if the state does not anticipate having three
full years of clean data by the attainment date. See EDF v. EPA, 369
F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2004); Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F3d 296 (D.C. Cir.
2004) amended 2004 WL 877850 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lead Nonattainment Problem in Los Angeles County
    Stationary sources of lead are generally large industrial sources,
including metals processing, particularly primary and secondary lead
smelters. Lead can also be emitted by iron and steel foundries; primary
and secondary copper smelters; industrial, commercial and institutional
boilers; waste incinerators; glass manufacturing; refineries; and
cement manufacturing. The District determined that the primary causes
of the nonattainment status of Los Angeles County are two large lead-
acid battery recycling facilities, Exide Technologies located in the
city of Vernon, and Quemetco, Inc. located in the City of Industry.
These facilities receive used lead-acid batteries and other lead-
bearing materials and recycle them, recovering the lead. Lead is
recycled because of its value and to reduce toxic waste, and it is
primarily used to manufacture new batteries.
    Because regional ambient air lead concentrations indicate low
ambient lead levels relative to the new lead NAAQS, and the only
ambient levels exceeding the NAAQS were at sites near the lead-acid
battery recyclers, SCAQMD's lead attainment strategy is focused on
reducing directly-emitted lead from these two sources.

B. California's SIP Submittal and EPA Proposed Action

    On December 11, 2013 (78 FR 75293), based on EPA's review of the
Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan--Los Angeles County (May
2012) (``2012 Los Angeles County Lead SIP'') submitted by California,
air quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials, EPA proposed
to approve the State of California's attainment plan for the 2008 lead
NAAQS, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3). The background for today's
action is discussed in detail in EPA's December 11, 2013 proposed
rulemaking and technical support document (TSD).
    Our proposed approval of the attainment plan was based on EPA's
finding that the area meets all lead NAAQS attainment plan requirements
under CAA sections 172, 191, and 192. EPA's proposal to approve the
State's attainment plan included SIP-approved control measures for
secondary lead smelters. Implementation of these control measures has
resulted in decreased emissions and the continued implementation of
these control measures is expected to provide for attainment of the
lead NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. EPA proposed to approve
the attainment year emissions inventory submitted with the plan, as
well as the RACM/RACT demonstration, the RFP demonstration, the
attainment demonstration including modeling, and the contingency
measures.

II. Public Comments and EPA's Response

    We received one public comment on our proposed rule. We summarize
the comment below and provide our response.
    Comment: The commenter expressed concern over the closing of Doe
Run in Missouri. (Doe Run was the last primary lead smelter in the
United States, located in Herculaneum, Missouri, and ceased smelting
operations at the end of December).
    Response: Our proposed rule concerned lead nonattainment in the Los
Angeles area. The facility referred to by the commenter is not the
subject of our proposed action, and the comment has no relevance to our
proposed action.

III. EPA's Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in our December 11, 2013 proposal see 78
FR 75293), EPA is approving California's attainment SIP for the Los
Angeles County lead nonattainment area for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This
SIP submittal addresses CAA requirements and EPA regulations for
expeditious attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS for the Los Angeles
County lead nonattainment area.
    For the reasons discussed in our proposed rulemaking, EPA is
proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements
of the South Coast lead attainment SIP:
    1. The SIP's base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.117(e)(1);
    2. the attainment demonstration, including air quality modeling,
that demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practicable, as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1);
    3. the RACM/RACT demonstration, as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1);
    4. the RFP demonstration, as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2);
    5. and contingency measures, as meeting the requirements of the CAA
section 172(c)(9).

VI. 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(433) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (433) The following plan was submitted on June 20, 2012, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Final 2012 Lead State Implementation Plan--Los Angeles County
(May 2012) (``2012 Los Angeles County Lead SIP''), adopted May 4, 2012.
    (2) SCAQMD Board Resolution 12-11, dated May 4, 2012, adopting the
2012 Los Angeles County Lead SIP.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Resolution 12-20, dated May 24, 2012, adopting the 2012
Los Angeles County Lead SIP.
[FR Doc. 2014-05227 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6629-6630]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02978]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82663; File No. SR-DTC-2017-023]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Restore the Timeframe for
Processing Credit Post-Payable Adjustments

February 8, 2018.
    On December 21, 2017, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-DTC-2017-023, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on January 8, 2018.\3\ The Commission did not
receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82433 (January 2, 2018),
83 FR 927 (January 8, 2017) (SR-DTC-2017-023) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would modify DTC's Distributions Service
Guide (``Guide'') \4\ to (i) increase the timeframe for accepting a
request from an issuer or its agent (``Paying Agent'') for a post-
payable adjustment (``PPA'') that results in a credit payment, and (ii)
make technical changes to the Guide, as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/
legal/service-guides/Distributions-Service-Guide-FINAL-January-
2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Current PPA Process

    On a daily basis, DTC collects and allocates distributions on
securities held by DTC.\5\ The distributions are commonly referred to
as principle and income payments, and they include dividend, interest,
principal, redemption, and maturity payments, as applicable.\6\
Occasionally, an error can occur with a principal or income payment due
to an error on the part of the Paying Agent, trustee, issuer, or a
change in the principle factor or rate.\7\ When an error occurs, Paying
Agents can request that DTC issue a PPA. A PPA can result in a debit
(``Debit PPA'')

or credit (``Credit PPA'') to the affected DTC participant
(``Participant'').\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 83 FR at 927.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the receipt of a PPA, affected Participants would need to make
adjustments to their affected customers' accounts for any misapplied
principal or income and any associated interest.\9\ In addition,
affected Participants may need to process adjustments against any
customer that traded the security after the initial payment had
occurred.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, DTC does not accept a request for a PPA, regardless of
whether it would be a Debit PPA or a Credit PPA, beyond 90 calendar
days after the initial payment date.\11\ If a Paying Agent wants to
make a PPA beyond 90 days, the adjustment cannot be processed through
DTC.\12\ Instead, the Paying Agent must request from DTC a listing of
all affected Participants and positions.\13\ Then, using that list, the
Paying Agent must contact each affected Participant to make direct
adjustments and/or payment arrangements outside of DTC.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Timeline for Credit PPAs

    DTC proposes to extend the 90-day cutoff for PPA Credits to one
year.\15\ DTC states that the new timeline for Credit PPAs would allow
Paying Agents more time to correct allocations to Participants
efficiently through DTC, rather than requiring the Paying Agent to make
the Credit PPAs bilaterally with each Participant, outside of DTC.\16\
DTC states that this efficiency would allow Participants, their
customers, and end investors to receive their credits more quickly.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Id.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would not alter the timeline for Debit
PPAs. DTC states that Debit PPAs create significant credit risk
exposure for Participants, customers, and investors as more time
passes.\18\ DTC states that Participants have difficulty recovering
debited funds from their customers that may no longer have an account,
may not have available funds, or may no longer service the end
investor.\19\ Therefore, DTC would preserve the 90-day cutoff for Debit
PPAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 927-28.
    \19\ Id. at 928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Technical Changes to the Guide

    DTC also proposes some technical changes to the Guide.
Specifically, DTC would modify the Guide to (i) remove an inaccurate
statement that PPA adjustments appear on Participant statements--such
adjustments do not appear on Participant statements; (ii) add the word
``principal'' to the list of payments that may be subject to a PPA--for
consistency with the term ``P&I'' and (iii) remove an incorrect
reference to CMO/ABS securities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \21\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to such organization. The Commission finds that this proposal is
consistent with Act, specifically Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules
of the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions.\23\ By extending
the cutoff period from 90 days to one year for the processing of Credit
PPAs through DTC, DTC would be providing centralized processing for
Credit PPAs for a longer period. Enabling Paying Agents to avail
themselves of such central processing for a longer period would help
the Paying Agents avoid the manual process of bilaterally processing
the Credit PPAs outside of DTC after 90 days. In doing so, the proposal
would enable Paying Agents to correct errors in Credit PPAs more
efficiently and effectively over a longer period. Therefore, the
Commission finds the proposed extension from 90 days to one year for
Credit PPAs to be processed by DTC would help promote the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions,
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that DTC's technical changes to the Guide
would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.\25\ Clarifying terms and descriptions in the Guide would help make
the Guide more accurate and clear. Maintaining an accurate and clear
Guide would enable Participants and other stakeholders to better
understand their respective rights and obligations. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that the proposed change to make technical changes to
the Guide would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Id.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in particular
the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \27\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that proposed rule change SR-DTC-2017-023 be, and hereby is,
approved.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposals' impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02978 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 71 (Monday, April 13, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20419-20420]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

Docket No. 31305; Amdt. No. 3899]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective April 13, 2020. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29 Room 104, Oklahoma
City, OK 73169. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2020.
Rick Domingo,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 21 May 2020

Fort Smith, AR, Fort Smith Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, Amdt 1
Fort Smith, AR, Fort Smith Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 25, Amdt 22
Fort Smith, AR, Fort Smith Rgnl, NDB RWY 25, Amdt 24F, CANCELLED
Denver, CO, Centennial, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, Amdt 11
Denver, CO, Centennial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35R, Amdt 1
Lamar, CO, Southeast Colorado Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig-B
Greenfield, IA, Greenfield Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1A
Chicago, IL, Chicago O'Hare Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 4R (SA CAT II), Amdt 8A
Detroit Lakes, MN, Detroit Lakes-Wething Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13,
Amdt 1A
Detroit Lakes, MN, Detroit Lakes-Wething Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31,
Amdt 1A
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13,
Amdt 1
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31,
Orig-D
Park Rapids, MN, Park Rapids Muni-Konshok Field, VOR RWY 13, Amdt
9B, CANCELLED
Crosby, ND, Crosby Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-B
Pender, NE, Pender Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Orig-D
Pender, NE, Pender Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig-D
Wayne, NE, Wayne Muni/Stan Morris Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 2B
Wayne, NE, Wayne Muni/Stan Morris Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1B
Wayne, NE, Wayne Muni/Stan Morris Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2C
Princeton/Rocky Hill, NJ, Princeton, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2
Watertown, SD, Watertown Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 11B
Grantsburg, WI, Grantsburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B
Grantsburg, WI, Grantsburg Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig-C
Morgantown, WV, Morgantown Muni--Walter L Bill Hart Field, Takeoff
Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6A

[FR Doc. 2020-07607 Filed 4-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 106 (Thursday, June 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33480-33481]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11762]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9897-01-OA; EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0053]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification for
a Virtual Public Meeting.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification for a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet
on the date and time described below. The meeting is open to the
public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments
relevant to EPA investments for addressing Environmental Justice and
related topics being considered by the NEJAC. For additional
information about registering to attend the meeting or to provide
public comment, please see ``REGISTRATION'' under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. Pre-registration is required.

DATES: The NEJAC will hold a two-day virtual public meeting on
Wednesday, June 22, 2022, and Thursday, June 23, 2022, from
approximately 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, each day. A public
comment period relevant to EPA investments and related topics will be
considered by the NEJAC during the meeting on June 22, 2022 (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Members of the public who wish to speak
during the public comment period must pre-register by 11:59 p.m.,
Eastern Time, June 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Jenkins, NEJAC Designated Federal
Officer, U.S. EPA; email: [email protected]; or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Additional information about the NEJAC is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-meetings.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary purpose of this meeting is for
the council to finalize advice and recommendations on EPA's investments
to address environmental justice through the Justice40 Initiative. The
meeting will also include updates from each of the NEJAC workgroups, a
special public stakeholder panel session and an oral public comment
period
    The Charter of the NEJAC states that the advisory committee will
provide independent advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator
about broad, crosscutting issues related to environmental justice. The
NEJAC's efforts will include evaluation of a broad range of strategic,
scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement and
economic issues related to environmental justice.
    Registration: Individual registration is required for the virtual
public meeting. No two individuals can share the same registration
link. Information on how to register is located at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-meetings. Registration to attend the meetings is available through the
scheduled end time of the meeting day. Registration to speak during the
public comment period will close at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, June 15,
2022. When registering, please provide your name, organization, city
and state, and email address for follow up. Please also indicate
whether you would like to provide public comment during the meeting,
and whether you are submitting written comments at time of
registration.

A. Public Comment

    The NEJAC is interested in receiving public comments specific to
EPA investments and the public's recommendation as to where investments
are made. Every effort will be made to hear from as many registered
public commenters during the time specified on the agenda. Individuals
or groups making remarks during the oral public comment period will be
limited to three (3) minutes. Please be prepared to briefly describe
your comments; including your recommendations on what you want the
NEJAC to advise the EPA to do. Submitting written comments for the
record are strongly encouraged. You can submit your written comments in
three different ways, (1.) by using the webform at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/forms/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-nejac-public-comment, (2.) by sending comments via email to
[email protected] and (3.) by creating comments in the Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OA-2022-0053 at http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments can be
submitted through July 6, 2022.

B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English Language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Fred Jenkins, via email at: [email protected] or
contact by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To request special accommodations
for a disability or other assistance, please submit your request at
least seven (7) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA
sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to
the email,

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Matthew Tejada,
Director for the Office of Environmental Justice.
[FR Doc. 2022-11762 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:75 days to comment is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


63423 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2002 / Notices original signature, and one electronic copy via e mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM– PC/ Windows 95/ 98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 25 copies of their comments for public distribution. Meeting Access— Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, including wheelchair access to the conference room, should contact Dr. Shallal at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. General Information— Additional information concerning the EPA Science Advisory Board, its structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ sab and in the EPA Science Advisory Board FY2001 Annual Staff Report which is available from the SAB Publications Staff at (202) 564– 4533 or via fax at (202) 501– 0256.

Dated: October 8, 2002. A. Robert Flaak, Acting Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. 02– 26170 Filed 10– 10– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0266; FRL– 7276– 1]

Methamidophos; Organophosphate Pesticide; Availability of Interim Risk Management Decision Document AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) document and technical support documents for the organophosphate (OP) pesticide, methamidophos. These documents have been developed using a public participation process designed by EPA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act and the reregistration of individual OPs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hartman, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 308– 0734; fax number: (703) 308– 8041; email address: hartman. mark@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general, but will interest a widerange of stakeholders, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the persons or entities who may be interested in or affected by this action. If you have questions in this regard, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP– 2002– 0266. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. Please note that technical supporting documents for methamidophos can be found under legacy docket number OPP– 34166 and may not be available in EPA Dockets. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Please note that technical supporting documents for methamidophos can be found under legacy docket number OPP– 34166 and may not be available in EPA Dockets.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

For the OP pesticide methamidophos, the Agency is announcing the availability of the IRED document and supporting technical documents. EPA has assessed the risks associated with the use of methamidophos and reached an interim reregistration eligibility decision for methamidophos. The methamidophos IRED and supporting technical documents were developed using the OP public participation process, which was designed to increase transparency and maximize stakeholder involvement and to provide numerous opportunities for public comment. You can read more about the OP public participation process at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ op/ process. htm. Below is a brief summary of EPA's interim decision, which is fully described in the methamidophos IRED document. EPA has determined that methamidophos is eligible for reregistration, pending a full reassessment of the cumulative risk from all OP pesticides, and provided that all the conditions identified in the IRED document are satisfied, including implementation of risk mitigation measures. Without implementation of the risk mitigation measures, the Agency has determined that methamidophos products may pose unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment. Therefore, EPA expects that registrant will implement the risk mitigation measures as soon as possible. The IRED document describes, in detail, what is necessary for implementing the risk mitigation measures, such as submission of label amendments for end use products and submission of any required data. Mitigation measures for methamidophos include a phase out of methamidophos use on cotton by 2007. Should a registrant fail to implement any of the risk mitigation identified in the IRED document, the Agency may take regulatory action to address risk concerns from the use of methamidophos.

VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 22: 29 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11OCN1. SGM 11OCN1 63424 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2002 / Notices B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The legal authority for this action falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, `` the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration, '' before calling in product specific data on individual enduse products, and either reregistering products or taking `` other appropriate regulatory action. ''

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: September 24, 2002. Lois Ann Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 02– 25861 Filed 10– 10– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0261; FRL– 7275– 9]

Notice of Receipt of Requests for Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6( f)( 1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request for amendments by registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide registrations. Section 6( f)( 1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to delete one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any request on the Federal Register. DATES: The deletions are effective on April 9, 2003, or on November 12, 2002, for products with registration numbers 007401– 00267, 062719– 00081, and 062719– 84, unless the Agency receives a withdrawal request on or before April 9, 2003, or on before November 12, 2002, for products with registration numbers 007401– 00267, 062719– 00081, and 062719– 00084. Users of these products who desire continued use on crops or sites being deleted should contact the applicable registrant on or before dates given above.

ADDRESSES: Withdrawal requests may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0261 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: James A. Hollins, Office of Pesticide Programs (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 0001; telephone number: (703) 305– 5761; e mail address: hollins. james@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0261. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search, '' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to delete uses in certain pesticide registrations. These registrations are listed in the following Table 1 by registration number, product name/ active ingredient, and specific uses deleted:

TABLE 1.— REGISTRATIONS WITH REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO DELETE USES IN CERTAIN PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS Registration Number Product Name Active Ingredient Delete from Label 006959– 00092 Cesso Fire Ant Killer Piperonyl butoxide; tetramethrin; permethrin, mixed cis, trans Indoor uses and use on outside surfaces of buildings 007401– 00267 Hi Yield 5% Malathion Dust Malathion dust Use on corn 062719– 00081 Lontrel F Technical Clopyralid Residential turf 062719– 00084 Lontrel 35A Clopyralid Residential turf VerDate 0ct< 02> 2002 22: 29 Oct 10, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11OCN1. SGM 11OCN1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3369-3373]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01882]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0730; FRL-9989-12--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program
Requirements

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 Maryland. This revision seeks to remove requirements for
gasoline vapor recovery systems installed on gasoline dispensers, the
purpose of which are to capture emissions from vehicle refueling
operations (otherwise known as Stage II vapor recovery). Specifically,
this action would remove from the approved SIP prior approved Stage II
requirements applicable to new gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs)
and existing GDF's undergoing major modification. GDF's will have the
choice whether to install Stage II at new stations or whether to
decommission Stage II at existing stations already equipped with Stage
II. Owners that elect to retain existing Stage II equipment can do so,
but in doing must continue to test and to maintain or replace existing
equipment. Maryland's SIP revision includes a demonstration that
removal of Stage II requirements is consistent with the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and meets all relevant EPA guidance.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 14, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0730 at http://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, 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. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we refer to EPA. The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Maryland's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and SIP
Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's SIP Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On August 25, 2017, the Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP. This SIP submittal consists of
Maryland's revised Stage II requirement regulations, at COMAR 26.11.24,
Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, which have been
revised to allow the decommissioning of existing Stage II vapor
recovery systems and which allows newly constructed GDFs (or those
undergoing major modifications) the option not to install Stage II
equipment. The SIP submittal also includes a demonstration that removal
of Stage II vapor recovery systems in Maryland will not interfere with
any requirement concerning attainment or reasonable progress of any
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Maryland's SIP demonstration is also intended
to show that removal of Stage II requirements is consistent with all
relevant EPA guidance.
    Stage II vapor recovery is an emission control system that is
installed on gasoline dispensing equipment at GDFs for the purpose of
capturing fuel vapor that would otherwise be released from vehicle gas
tanks into the atmosphere during vehicle refueling. Stage II vapor
recovery systems installed on dispensing equipment capture these
refueling emissions at the dispenser and route the refueling vapors
back to the GDF's underground storage tank, preventing volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) that comprise these vapors from escaping to the
atmosphere.
    Beginning in 1998, newly manufactured gasoline-burning cars and
trucks have been equipped with on-board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems
that utilize carbon canisters installed directly on the vehicle to
capture refueling vapors in the vehicle to be later routed to the
vehicle's engine for combustion during engine operation.
    Stage II vapor recovery systems and ORVR systems were initially
both required by the 1990 amendments to the CAA. Section 182(b)(3) of
the CAA requires areas classified as moderate and above ozone
nonattainment to implement Stage II vapor recovery programs. Also,
under CAA section 184(b)(2), states in the Northeast Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) are required to implement Stage II or comparable measures.
CAA section 202(a)(6) required EPA to promulgate regulations for ORVR
for light-duty cars and trucks (passenger vehicles). EPA adopted these
requirements in a final action published in the April 6, 1994 Federal
Register (59 FR 16262 (hereafter referred to as the ORVR rule). Upon
the effective date of that final rule, moderate ozone nonattainment
areas were no longer subject to CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor
recovery requirements. Under the ORVR rule, new passenger cars built in
model year 1998 and later were required to be equipped with ORVR
systems, followed by model year 2001 and later light-duty trucks. ORVR
equipment has been installed on nearly all new gasoline-powered light-
duty cars, light-

duty trucks, and heavy-duty vehicles manufactured since 2006.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, August 7, 2012, Table A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the phase-in of ORVR controls, Stage II has provided VOC
emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas and in certain areas
of the OTR. Congress recognized that ORVR systems and Stage II vapor
recovery systems would over time become largely redundant technologies
acting to capture the same pollutants. Therefore, Congress provided
authority in the 1990 amendments to the CAA for EPA to allow states to
remove Stage II vapor recovery programs from their SIPs upon EPA making
a finding that ORVR is in ``widespread use.'' EPA issued a widespread
use finding in a final rule published in the May 16, 2012 Federal
Register (77 FR 28772), in which EPA determined that ORVR was in
widespread use on a nationwide basis. EPA estimated that as of the end
of 2016, more than 88 percent of gasoline refueling nationwide would
occur with ORVR-equipped vehicles.\2\ Thus, Stage II vapor recovery
programs have become largely redundant control systems (for ORVR-
equipped vehicles) and as a result, Stage II vapor recovery systems
achieve ever declining emissions benefits as more ORVR-equipped
vehicles continue to enter the on-road motor vehicle fleet.\3\ In areas
where certain types of vacuum-assist Stage II vapor recovery systems
are used, the interaction between ORVR systems and certain
configurations of Stage II vapor recovery systems results in the
reduction of overall control system efficiency in capturing VOC
refueling emissions compared to what would otherwise be achieved by
ORVR or Stage II acting in the absence of the other. In its May 16,
2012 widespread use rulemaking, EPA also exercised its authority under
CAA section 202(a)(6) to waive certain federal statutory requirements
for Stage II vapor recovery systems at GDFs, which among other things,
exempted all new ozone nonattainment areas classified serious or above
from the requirement to adopt Stage II vapor recovery programs.
Finally, EPA's May 16, 2012 rulemaking also noted that any state
currently implementing Stage II vapor recovery program may submit SIP
revisions that would allow for the phase-out of Stage II vapor recovery
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, Table A-1, August 7, 2012.
    \3\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Maryland's Stage II Vapor Recovery Program and SIP
Revisions

    The Maryland portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-
DE-MD metropolitan area (hereafter referred to as the Maryland portion
of the Philadelphia area or the Philadelphia area) and the Baltimore,
MD metropolitan area were designated by the CAA as severe nonattainment
for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ At the same time, the Maryland
portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA metropolitan area (hereafter
referred to as the Maryland portion of the Washington area, or the
Washington area) was designated as serious nonattainment under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, Maryland adopted Stage II vapor recovery
regulations (COMAR 26.11.24) for the Maryland portion of the Washington
area, the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia area, and for the
Baltimore, MD area on January 18, 1993 (Maryland Register, February 5,
1993, Vol. 20, Issue 3). Maryland submitted a revision to EPA on
January 18, 1993 to request the addition of Maryland Stage II
requirements to the Maryland SIP, which EPA approved in a final action
published in the June 9, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 29730). Maryland
submitted a revised version of this regulation to EPA as a SIP revision
on May 23, 2002, which EPA approved in a final action published in the
May 7, 2003 Federal Register (68 FR 24363). Maryland further amended
its Stage II regulation on January 26, 2005, and EPA approved that
revised rule as a revision to the Maryland SIP in a final rule
published in the May 8, 2006 Federal Register (71 FR 26688).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR 81-321, effective November 15, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland was also required to adopt Stage II, or comparable
measures, on a statewide basis under the Stage II OTR provisions of CAA
section 184(b)(2). Maryland submitted a comparable measures
demonstration to satisfy the Stage II comparability requirement to EPA
on November 5, 1997. EPA approved Maryland's November 1997 Stage II
comparability SIP in a final rule published in the December 9, 1998
Federal Register (63 FR 67780). Maryland's OTR Stage II comparability
demonstration relied on five area source VOC control rules as
comparable measures to Stage II.
    On August 25, 2017, Maryland submitted a SIP revision to EPA
consisting of revised Stage II requirements (COMAR26.11.24) adopted by
MDE on November 2, 2015 (state effective November 23, 2015), along with
a demonstration of the emission impacts of removal of the Stage II
requirements on affected Maryland areas. The revised rule removes the
requirements for new Stage II vapor recovery systems in Maryland Stage
II areas, while allowing GDFs with installed Stage II systems the
option to decommission their equipment or to retain it. Maryland's
revised Stage II vapor recovery requirements rule incorporates by
reference requirements and procedures for stations opting to
decommission Stage II vapor recovery equipment, based on Section 14 of
the Petroleum Equipment Institute's Recommended Practices for
Installation and Testing of Vapor Recovery Systems at Vehicle-Fueling
Sites, 2009 edition, PEI/RP300-09.
    Under Maryland's revised rule, GDFs opting to continue to operate
Stage II vapor recovery equipment, as well as those opting to
decommission Stage II vapor recovery equipment, are subject to
continued testing requirements (at specified intervals) and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to testing. Maryland's
revised rule incorporates by reference several test methods applicable
to GDFs that opt to decommission or to continue to operate Stage II
vapor recovery systems (Leak Rate and Cracking Pressure of Pressure/
Vacuum Valves, TP-201.1E, California EPA Air Resources Board) and
(Determination of Vapor Piping Connections to Underground Gasoline
Storage Tanks (Tie-Tank Test), TP-201.3C, California EPA Air Resources
Board). For GDFs opting to continue Stage II operation (in addition to
prior Stage II test requirements), new tests are added to include a
periodic leak rate and cracking pressure test (per TP-201.1E), as well
as a tie tank test (per TP-201.3C). GDFs opting to decommission will be
subject only to the newly added periodic leak rate and cracking
pressure test (TP-201.1E) and the tie tank test (TP-201.3C). Copies of
test results must be forwarded to MDE within 30 days of the test.
    The August 25, 2017 SIP revision also includes a demonstration
supporting the discontinuation of the Maryland Stage II vapor recovery
program. This demonstration, discussed in greater detail below,
consists of an analysis that after the year 2016, the overall emissions
benefits associated with the Stage II program (operated in conjunction
with ORVR) are overwhelmed by an emissions disbenefit caused by an ORVR
incompatibility with certain vacuum-assist type Stage II equipment.
MDE's

analysis shows that continued operation of the Stage II vapor recovery
program beyond 2016 actually increases VOC emissions due to the
incompatibility between certain Stage II and ORVR equipment, coupled
with the increasing prevalence of ORVR-equipped vehicles. While
Maryland is not requiring every Stage II-equipped GDF to decommission
their equipment, it is assumed a majority of existing stations will do
so upon the removal of state and federal Stage II mandates. Even if all
stations do no decommission their equipment (or delay doing so),
overall emission benefits will be improved by the shift to primarily
ORVR use in current Stage II subject areas.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Maryland's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Maryland's revised COMAR 26.11.24, Vapor Recovery
at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and accompanying SIP narrative, and
has concluded that Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision is
consistent with EPA's widespread use rule (77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012)
and with EPA's ``Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plan and Assessing Comparable
Measures'' (EPA-457/B-12-001; August 7, 2012), hereafter referred to as
EPA's Stage II Removal Guidance.
    Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision includes a demonstration
supporting the discontinuation of the Maryland Stage II vapor recovery
program, in compliance with the requirements of the CAA sections 110(l)
requirement that revision of the SIP will not interfere with attainment
of or reasonable further progress towards attainment of any NAAQS or
any other applicable CAA requirement. This demonstration was prepared
by MDE based on relevant equations provided in EPA's Stage II Removal
Guidance. From this analysis, Maryland determined that by 2016 the
emissions benefits from the Stage II vapor recovery program (in
conjunction with ORVR) will be overwhelmed by the emission disbenefits
stemming from an incompatibility between certain Stage II vacuum-assist
based systems and ORVR. Beyond 2016, the continuation of Stage II vapor
recovery requirements would increase emissions in the Maryland portions
of all analyzed areas, as summarized in Table 1. Based on this
analysis, Maryland elected to allow decommissioning of Stage II vapor
recovery systems beginning in October 2016.

                                    Table 1--Stage II VOC Reductions for Maryland Ozone Nonattainment Counties/Areas
                                                                [In metric tons per day]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 County                        2014            2015            2016            2017            2018            2019            2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Arundel............................            0.07            0.01           -0.03           -0.07           -0.09           -0.11           -0.12
Baltimore...............................            0.09            0.01           -0.05           -0.09           -0.13           -0.15           -0.17
Calvert.................................            0.01            0.01           -0.00           -0.01           -0.01           -0.01           -0.02
Carroll.................................            0.02            0.00           -0.01           -0.02           -0.02           -0.03           -0.03
Cecil...................................            0.04            0.02            0.01            0.00           -0.01           -0.01           -0.02
Charles.................................            0.02            0.01            0.00           -0.01           -0.02           -0.03           -0.03
Frederick...............................            0.05            0.02           -0.01           -0.03           -0.04           -0.05           -0.06
Harford.................................            0.03            0.01           -0.01           -0.03           -0.04           -0.05           -0.05
Howard..................................            0.04            0.00           -0.02           -0.05           -0.06           -0.08           -0.08
Montgomery..............................            0.11            0.03           -0.03           -0.08           -0.12           -0.15           -0.17
Prince George's.........................            0.13            0.04           -0.04           -0.09           -0.13           -0.16           -0.18
Baltimore City..........................            0.03            0.00           -0.03           -0.05           -0.06           -0.07           -0.08
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Baltimore Area Total................            0.28            0.04           -0.15           -0.30           -0.41           -0.48           -0.54
    Maryland Portion of Washington Area             0.33            0.10           -0.08           -0.22           -0.33           -0.40           -0.46
     Total..............................
    Maryland Portion of Philadelphia                0.04            0.02            0.01            0.00           -0.01           -0.01           -0.02
     Area Total.........................
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
        Stage II Area Total.............            0.65            0.17           -0.22           -0.52           -0.74           -0.90           -1.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating whether a given SIP revision would interfere with
attainment of a NAAQS, EPA generally considers whether the SIP revision
will allow for an increase in actual emission into the air over what is
allowed under the existing EPA-approved SIP. EPA has not required that
states produce a new complete attainment demonstration for every SIP
revision, provided that the status quo air quality is preserved. See
e.g., Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 F.3d 986 (6th Cir.
2006).\5\ EPA believes that a planned Stage II decommissioning that is
shown not to result in an increase in areawide VOC emissions would be
consistent with the conditions of CAA section 110(l), and would not
jeopardize attainment or maintenance of an area that formerly relied
upon Stage II emission reductions in the approved SIP. Maryland has
demonstrated that Stage II vapor recovery will no longer provide
emission reductions when compared to ORVR without Stage II vapor
recovery in all Maryland ozone nonattainment areas. Since 2016, Stage
II vapor recovery (operated in conjunction with ORVR) has been shown by
Maryland to result in increased VOC emissions in Maryland's three ozone
nonattainment areas--due to incompatibilities between certain types of
Stage II equipment and vehicle ORVR systems. Therefore, EPA believes
discontinuance of Stage II in Maryland's three ozone nonattainment
areas will not interfere with those areas' ability to attain or
maintain the NAAQS, or to provide reasonable further progress in
meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control
Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable
Measures, August 7, 2012, Section 2.2.

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

    States in the OTR defined by the CAA remain obligated under CAA
section 184(b)(2) to implement (on a statewide basis) either a Stage II
vapor recovery program, or other measures capable of achieving emission
reductions ``comparable to those achievable'' by Stage II vapor
recovery. EPA issued guidance on this OTR comparability demonstration
in 1995 and later updated that guidance as part of its August 2012
Stage II Removal Guidance--in light of the decreasing role of Stage II
as a means of controlling refueling emissions and the increasing
prominence of ORVR-equipped vehicles.
    Maryland submitted a comparable measures SIP revision to EPA on
November 5, 1997 demonstrating that control measures already
implemented in those counties in Maryland not subject to Stage II vapor
recovery under CAA section 182(b)(3) achieved comparable emission
reductions to Stage II vapor recovery. Maryland's chosen Stage II
comparable measures included non-point, or area source, controls on:
Cold and vapor degreasing operations, lithographic printing, screen
printing, expandable polystyrene operations, and vehicle refinishing.
To address areas in Maryland subject to Stage II or a comparable
measure (as a result of the CAA section 184 requirements specific to
OTR states), EPA approved Maryland's November 1997 Stage II
comparability SIP for attainment and marginal ozone nonattainment
counties in a final action published in the December 9, 1998 Federal
Register (63 FR 67780). Maryland is not required to further demonstrate
Stage II comparability for those counties as that action remains in
effect.
    However, Maryland is required to newly demonstrate Stage II
comparability for the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington areas--
where Stage II vapor recovery was previously mandated by CAA section
182(b)(3) prior to EPA's issuance of its ORVR ``widespread use''
determination. The 110(l) demonstration in Maryland's August 25, 2017
SIP revision shows that Stage II no longer yields VOC emissions
benefits in these three nonattainment areas after 2016, when operated
in conjunction with ORVR. Therefore, since Stage II provides no
additional benefits beyond ORVR (and results in increases in VOC
emissions beyond 2016) in these three nonattainment areas, EPA believes
that removal of Stage II after 2016 satisfies the Stage II
comparability requirement of section 184 for these three ozone
nonattainment areas.
    In addition to the CAA section 182 and 184 requirements applicable
to Stage II vapor recovery, CAA section 193 prohibits modification of
any control requirement in effect before enactment of the CAA of 1990
(i.e., November 15, 1990) in a current nonattainment area--unless
modification ``ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions.''
Therefore, a Stage II vapor recovery control program implemented under
a SIP prior to November 1990 may not be removed from the SIP until
another requirement is shown to achieve equal or greater emissions
reductions than Stage II vapor recovery. Maryland did not have a Stage
II program prior to November 15, 1990, so Stage II was not a part of
the Maryland SIP prior to that date. Therefore, this ``general savings
clause'' requirement of CAA section 193 does not apply to Maryland or
to this action.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's August 25, 2017 SIP revision
for statewide removal of Stage II vapor recovery requirements.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's revised COMAR
26.11.24, Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, and
incorporate it into the Maryland SIP. EPA is proposing to approve this
SIP revision because it meets all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act and relevant EPA guidance and because approval of this SIP
revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rule, EPA proposes to include in our subsequent
final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference the State of Maryland's revised
COMAR 26.11.24 Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
(effective date November 23, 2015), which includes amendments to
Regulations .01, .01-1, .02, .03, .03-1, .04, and .07 and the addition
of Regulation .03-1. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through http://www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in the
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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 an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 (Public Law 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 proposed rule to remove Maryland Stage II vapor
recovery requirements 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 28, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-01882 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P