[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 65 (Thursday, April 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16772-16777]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06891]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0611; FRL-9960-69-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; CT; Reasonably Available Control Technology
for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut for purposes of
implementing the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
SIP revisions consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the
requirements of reasonably available control technology for the two
precursors for ground-level ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), set forth by the Clean Air Act
with respect to the 2008 ozone standards. Additionally, we are
proposing approval of three related regulations that limit air
emissions of these pollutants from sources within the State. This
action is being taken in accordance with sections 172, 182, and 184 of
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2014-0611, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, 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: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revisions
    a. RACT Certification for the 2008 Ozone Standard

    b. Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Regulation
    c. NOX Control Requirements for Major Sources
    d. NOX Control Requirements for Non-Major Sources
    e. Compliance Date for Updated NOX RACT Requirements
    f. Other Miscellaneous Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 18, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a formal revision to its
State Implementation Plan. The SIP revision consists of information
documenting how Connecticut complied with the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) \1\ requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard. On September 16, 2016, Connecticut submitted portions of an
amended version of section 22a-174-38 of the Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies (RCSA) controlling emissions from municipal waste
combustors (MWCs), and requested that these provisions be incorporated
into the Connecticut SIP. Additionally, on January 24, 2017,
Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision request RCSA section
22a-174-22e, a regulation limiting emissions of NOX from
major sources, and RCSA section 22a-174-22f, a regulation limiting
NOX emissions from non-major sources. The September 16, 2016
and January 24, 2017 submittals are related to Connecticut's
demonstration that the State has complied with the RACT requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Connecticut also included within
the January 24, 2017 submittal, a request that its previous
NOX control regulation, RCSA section 22a-174-22, be
withdrawn from the SIP effective June 1, 2018, because that regulation
was superseded by the other submitted regulations which are more
stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RACT is defined as ``the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.'' (44 FR 53762 (1979))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires RACT in states located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
VOC and NOX emissions sources and for all sources covered by
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC
source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control
requirements. States must submit rules, or negative declarations when
no such sources exist for CTG source categories, but not for sources in
ACT categories. However, RACT must be imposed on major sources of
NOX, and some of those major sources may be within a sector
covered by an ACT document.
    In 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS, or standards) for ozone, setting it at 0.075 parts
per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA determined
that the revised 8-hour standard would be more protective of human
health, especially with regard to children and adults who are active
outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease such
as asthma.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule in the
Federal Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be
in nonattainment of the 2008 ozone standard needed to address. This
rule, herein referred to as the ``2008 ozone implementation rule,''
contained, among other things, a description of EPA's expectations for
states with RACT obligations. The 2008 ozone implementation rule
indicated that states could meet RACT through the establishment of new
or more stringent requirements that meet RACT control levels, through a
certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP
approved by EPA under a prior ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT
control levels for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, or with a
combination of these two approaches. In addition, a state must submit a
negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG sources.

II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revisions

    On July 18, 2014, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its
regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT
as defined in EPA's 2008 ozone implementation rule. The State conducted
a public comment process on its demonstration which concluded on July
11, 2014. Connecticut's RACT submittal notes that its prior designation
as a nonattainment area for the 1979 and 1997 ozone standards resulted
in the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and
NOX, including RACT level controls. Therefore, as allowed
for within the 2008 ozone implementation rule, much of Connecticut's
submittal consists of a review of RACT controls adopted under previous
ozone standards and an indication of whether those previously adopted
controls still represent RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Additionally,
Connecticut notes that as a member state of the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC), it works with that organization to identify and
adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional VOC and
NOX categories beyond those for which EPA has issued CTGs or
ACT documents.
    The State's July 18, 2014 submittal identifies the specific control
measures that had been previously adopted to control emissions from
major sources of VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for
some CTG categories, and describes updates Connecticut intended at that
time to make to existing rules to strengthen them so that they would
continue to represent RACT. Table 4 of Connecticut's submittal contains
a summary of the previously-adopted measures for each of the CTG
categories that EPA issued prior to 2006. The table identifies the
specific state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the date of
state adoption, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the
Connecticut SIP. Connecticut notes that RCSA sections 22a-174-20 and
22a-174-32, which are the principal regulations in Connecticut that
apply to stationary sources of VOC emissions, generally cover sources
emitting 25 or more tons of VOC per year in the area that was
classified as a severe nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone
standard (portions of Fairfield and Litchfield counties; see 56 FR
56694; November 6, 1991) and those emitting 50 or more tons of VOC per
year in the rest of the State. However, for some CTG categories such as
surface coating sources, Connecticut's rules include lower
applicability thresholds consistent with the relevant CTGs.
Additionally, section IV. A. of Connecticut's submittal describes the
State's response to EPA's issuance of new VOC RACT CTGs in 2006, 2007,
and 2008, which included adoption of a number of new regulations,
negative declarations, and for miscellaneous industrial adhesives,
submittal of a demonstration of an equivalence level of control from an
existing regulation. EPA approved the State's SIP revisions addressing
the 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32873).
    As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NOX
emissions as well as VOC emissions. In particular, the submittal's
Table 5 lists all major

sources of NOX (and VOC) in the State, and identifies the
NOX control regulation governing each source. Connecticut
notes that all facilities in the State with the potential to emit 50
tons or more of NOX per year (or 25 tons in portions of
Fairfield and Litchfield counties) are subject to RCSA section 22a-174-
22, ``Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions.'' In addition, RCSA section
22a-174-38, Municipal waste combustors, regulates NOX
emissions from Connecticut's six MWCs, which are currently the largest
NOX emitting sector in the State, surpassing emissions from
the State's fossil fueled electric utilities. Connecticut reviewed
these two regulations and determined that both should be updated in
order to represent RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, on
September 16, 2016, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision including an
updated version of 22a-174-38 that contains a tightened NOX
emission limit for mass burn waterwall refuse combustors. Additionally,
on January 24, 2017, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision that includes
a request to withdraw the State's existing NOX control
regulation, RCSA s+ection 22a-174-22, from the SIP, and replace it with
two NOX control regulations, namely, RCSA section 22a-174-
22e, which limits NOX emissions from major sources, and 22a-
174-22f, which limits NOX emissions from non-major sources
of NOX.
    Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NOX thus concludes that upon completion of its
intended updates to existing NOX rules for MWCs and
combustion sources, all major sources in the State will be subject to
RACT meeting the RACT requirements of the 2008 ozone standard.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revisions

a. RACT Certification for the 2008 Ozone Standard

    EPA has reviewed Connecticut's determination that it has adopted
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT, and determined that the set of regulations cited by
the State within its July 18, 2014 RACT certification SIP submittal,
along with the subsequent adoption of the NOX control
regulations cited below which we are proposing to approve within this
action, constitute RACT for purposes of the 2008 ozone standard.
    Connecticut's RACT certification submittal documents the State's
VOC and NOX control regulations that have been adopted to
ensure that RACT level controls are required in the State. These
requirements include the following Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies: Section 22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions;
section 22a-174-22, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions; section 22a-
174-30, Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery; \2\
section 22a-174-32, RACT for Organic Compound Emissions; and 22a-174-
38, Municipal Waste Combustors. We note that section 22a-174-22,
Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, will sunset on June 1, 2018, and
be replaced by sections 22a-174-22e, which controls NOX
emissions from major sources, and 22a-174-22f, which controls
NOX emissions from non-major sources. These updated
NOX control regulations are described further below, and
will achieve more emission reductions than the rule they replace.
Furthermore, Connecticut has adopted more stringent controls for some
types of MWCs (also discussed further below), which will likewise
further reduce NOX emissions in the State. Connecticut's
RACT certification submittal notes that it has adopted numerous single
source RACT orders for major sources of VOC and NOX that are
not covered by one of EPA's CTGs or ACTs, and these orders have been
submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP, as have individual
orders providing for NOX trading among facilities within the
State as authorized by section 22a-174-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Connecticut subsequently replaced this regulation with RCSA
section 22a-174-30a, which contains the Stage I related provisions
but does not contain the Stage II requirements in light of the
widespread use of on-board vapor recovery. RCSA section 22a-174-30a
was submitted to EPA for approval on September 14, 2015. EPA will
take action on the new RCSA section 22a-174-30a in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in
ozone exceedance days between 1975 and 2013, much of which is
attributable to the control measures put in place by Connecticut,
upwind states, and federal control measures adopted in the early and
mid-1990s pursuant to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
Connecticut's submittal also notes that VOC and NOX
emissions from stationary sources contribute a relatively small portion
to total emissions of those pollutants. For example, the State's major
VOC sources only emitted 880 tons in 2011, which amounts to
approximately 1% of Connecticut's anthropogenic VOC emissions. Major
sources of NOX emissions emitted 5,902 tons in 2011,
representing approximately 7.5% of total NOX emissions in
the State.
    We have reviewed Connecticut's RACT certification demonstration,
and determined that the State's regulatory requirements and the
resulting reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from major
sources that they accomplish, demonstrate that a RACT level of control
for both pollutants will be in place given the State's modifications to
existing NOx regulations discussed below. Since we agree that the VOC
and NOx stationary source control regulations which Connecticut has
cited as meeting RACT do meet RACT for the 2008 ozone standard, we are
proposing to approve Connecticut's July 18, 2014 RACT certification
SIP.
    Our most recent approval of a RACT certification SIP for
Connecticut is fairly recent, occurring on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 38587),
with respect to the 1997 ozone standard. Since then, in 2014,
Connecticut re-evaluated its RACT regulations and determined that a
number of NOX regulations, as described above, should be
updated to be consistent with requirements in other states. Connecticut
initiated a comprehensive stakeholder process with business, industry,
and environmental advocates which resulted in the development of
tighter NOX limits for MWCs, boilers, turbines, and
reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) units. We note that
Connecticut's July 18, 2014 RACT certification also discusses updates
to its existing consumer products and architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings regulations to implement tightened VOC emission
limits. CT DEEP has since proposed these updates but has not yet
submitted them to EPA for approval. Although these rules will assist
Connecticut in its efforts to attain the ozone standard, these updates
are not necessary for EPA's approval of the RACT certification. These
rules do not apply to major stationary sources and are not categories
for which EPA has issued a CTG. Therefore, they are not necessary
components of the State's RACT certification.

b. Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Regulation

    On December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63311), EPA approved portions of
Connecticut's regulation limiting emissions from MWCs. More recently,
on September 16, 2016, Connecticut submitted portions of an amended
version of the MWC regulation, which is found at RCSA section 22a-174-
38, to EPA, and requested it be incorporated into the SIP. The portions
submitted for inclusion into the SIP pertain to NOX

emission limits and related regulatory provisions. The primary revision
made within the amendments was a lowering of the NOX
emission limit for mass burn waterwall units from a range of between
177 to 200 parts per million (ppm) to 150 ppm, with an August 2, 2017
compliance date. The amendments also add an emission limit for ammonia,
which will limit emissions of fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) for MWC units that use selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) to control NOX emissions. Additionally,
emission testing requirements, a schedule for testing emissions, and
removal of provisions for use of NOX trading as a compliance
mechanism were among other items included with the amendments. We have
reviewed Connecticut's amended MWC requirements and are proposing
approval of them. The most significant change being made is to the
NOX emission limit for mass burn waterwall units, which is
being lowered from an existing range of between 177 to 200 ppm, to a
new limit of 150 ppm. Since the new limit is more stringent than the
previously approved limit, the anti-back sliding requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA are met. Additionally, Connecticut's
NOX emission limits for MWCs are more stringent than the
corresponding federal limits for new sources found at 40 CFR part 60,
subparts Ea, Cb, and Eb, and also are more stringent than the
corresponding federal limits for existing sources found at 40 CFR part
62, subpart FFF.

c. NOX Control Requirements for Major Sources

    EPA's most recent approval of Connecticut's regulation limiting
NOX emissions from sources in the State occurred on July 20,
2014 (79 FR 39322). On January 24, 2017, Connecticut submitted a SIP
revision to EPA that consisted of a comprehensive update of its
NOX control requirements. Specifically, the revision
included the regulatory revisions that Connecticut determined were
necessary after evaluating the current state of RACT for boilers,
turbines, and RICE engines. The submittal included two new regulations,
RCSA 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxide emissions from fuel-burning
equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides, and 22a-174-
22f, High daily NOX emitting units at non-major sources of
NOX. The two newly adopted regulations will reduce
NOX emissions beyond the level achieved by the State's
existing NOX control regulation, 22a-174-22, which will
expire as of June 1, 2018. June 1, 2018 is also the effective date of
the ``Phase 1'' control limits that affect some equipment types, as
further described below.
    After examining the NOX RACT limits in other states, in
particular those in New York and New Jersey, Connecticut determined
that some of its existing limits for boilers, turbines, and RICE units
should be tightened. Therefore, in order to meet RACT for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, Connecticut adopted tighter limits, which it refers to as
Phase 1 control limits, within section 22a-174-22e. This newly adopted
regulation contains the following changes to 24-hour emission limits,
with a June 1, 2018 compliance date for the new lower limits: for gas-
fired cyclone boilers, rate reduced from 0.43 to 0.3 pounds per million
British Thermal Unit (lbs/mmBTU); for coal-fired ``other boilers,'' \3\
rate reduced from 0.38 to 0.28 lbs/mmBTU; for combined cycle combustion
turbines, rate reduced from 55 to 42 parts per million (ppm) for gas
fired units, and from 75 to 65 ppm for oil fired units. The existing
limit of 0.9 lb/mmBTU for turbines rated at less than 100 million BTU/
hr will be eliminated upon the compliance date for the Phase 1 limits.
Connecticut also added new ozone season limits for boilers serving
electrical generating units (EGUs), industrial boilers, and for simple
cycle turbines in Phase 1. Additionally, Connecticut included a tune-up
requirement applicable to boilers and RICE units to its Phase 1
requirements, which was not previously required. Connecticut included
within its submittal of 22a-174-22e an analysis of the regulation
compared to the State's prior NOX limits within 22a-174-22,
which demonstrates that the newly adopted regulation accomplishes more
emission reductions than the prior regulation, thereby meeting the
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This category of coal fired boilers is applicable to the
State's only coal fired electric utility boiler, Bridgeport Harbor
Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the strengthened NOX limits, during the
stakeholder process Connecticut was able to negotiate additional
reductions in emission limits for boilers, turbines, and RICE units
beyond those adopted in Phase 1, in part, by agreeing to a phased
approach whereby the more stringent Phase 2 requirements would not need
to be met until 2023. It should be noted that the Phase 2 requirements
are not a necessary part of Connecticut's RACT certification for the
2008 ozone standard. The compliance date for Phase 1 controls is much
sooner, occurring on June 1, 2018. Affected owners of NOX
emitting equipment supported this approach because it provided valuable
lead time to plan for the financial and logistical aspects of meeting
the Phase 2 emission limits. Compliance dates are discussed further in
section e. below.

d. NOX Control Requirements for Non-Major Sources

    Regarding newly adopted RCSA section 22a-174-22f, High daily
NOX emitting units at non-major sources of NOX,
this regulation requires owners of equipment at small- and medium-sized
``non-major'' sources to track daily emissions during the ozone season,
and take steps to reduce emissions if they exceed a certain level of
NOX emissions. The rule's applicability levels are quite
low, reaching as low as 3 mmBTU/hr for certain types of boilers, as low
as 1 mmBTU/hr for RICE units, and as low as 6 mmBTU/hr for simple cycle
and combined cycle turbines. Emission units subject to this rule are
required to comply with various record keeping and reporting
requirements, and in some circumstances, annual tune-up requirements.
Moreover, the rule contains daily NOX emission thresholds,
which if exceeded, will trigger additional requirements for the
emission unit. Once an emission unit triggers the applicable
NOX emission threshold, it must notify the State of this
within 60 days, and thereafter meet the relevant emission rate
contained in RCSA section 22a-174-22e within 270 days of the threshold
being first exceeded. Connecticut is not specifically required to adopt
a regulation for these sources to meet RACT since they are non-major
sources and the CAA requires states to implement NOX RACT
for all major sources. The rule will, however, strengthen the State's
overall regulatory program for sources of NOX and help the
State in its efforts to attain the ozone NAAQS. Connecticut included
within its submittal of 22a-174-22f an analysis of the regulation
compared to the State's prior NOx limits within 22a-174-22, which
demonstrates that the newly adopted regulation accomplishes more
emission reductions than the prior regulation, thereby meeting the
requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, for the above
reasons, EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's 22a-174-22f into the
Connecticut SIP.

e. Compliance Date for Updated NOX RACT Requirements

    We have reviewed Connecticut's RACT certification for the 2008
ozone NAAQS and revised NOX control regulations, and are
proposing approval of them into the Connecticut SIP. One

consideration we evaluated in determining our proposed action on
Connecticut's RACT certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was how to
address RCSA section 22a-174-22e's Phase 1 compliance date of June 1,
2018 and RCSA section 22a-174-38's compliance date of August 2, 2017.
Our March 6, 2015 implementation rule required RACT level controls be
in place by January 1, 2017. See 80 FR 12280. However, despite the
compliance dates of June 1, 2018 and August 2, 2017, we believe other
circumstances weigh in favor of and merit our proposed approval of
their RACT certification. Our rationale is as follows.
    First, we note that the majority of sources continue to be
controlled under NOX RACT requirements already contained in
the SIP. The June 1, 2018 and August 2, 2017 compliance dates in
question only apply to a subset of all of the facilities subject to
RACT requirements, and those sources are already subject to controls
approved into the SIP to meet RACT requirements, but will be more
strictly controlled under section 22a-174-22e's Phase 1 requirements.
    With regard to the new RACT requirements, given that January 1,
2017 has already passed, it is not possible to retroactively meet that
date for compliance obligations. Connecticut completed its stakeholder
process for 22a-174-22e with business, industry, and environmental
advocates in 2016, and although its new NOX regulations
became effective December 22, 2016, the State did not feel it was
reasonable to require immediate compliance, and so sources were given
until June 1, 2018 to come into compliance with the Phase 1 limits.
Likewise, Connecticut's tightened NOX limits for MWCs became
effective on August 2, 2016, and sources are required to comply with
these limits within one year, i.e., by August 2, 2017.
    Additionally, Connecticut's adoption of RCSA sections 22a-174-22e
and f contain a number of provisions that accomplish more
NOX reductions than what is required by RACT. For example,
the requirements of 22a-174-22f, High daily NOX emitting
units at non-major sources of NOX, as its name implies,
applies to small- and medium-sized facilities that are not subject to
RACT, but may, on any given day, emit significant amounts of
NOX. This can happen on high electrical demand days (HEDDs),
when additional electrical generating capacity is needed to maintain
service, as determined by the relevant electrical grid operator. Over
the past decade, Connecticut and the other states in the Northeast have
identified this phenomenon as a prime concern because oftentimes these
units, due to their infrequent use and low potential emissions on an
annual basis, are not considered major sources and therefore not
required to be equipped with air pollution controls. Connecticut's
regulatory effort as embodied within 22a-174-22f directly targets this
activity, and although not specifically required to meet the RACT
requirements of the CAA, is something that EPA has encouraged states to
address to help resolve their ozone air quality problems.
    Another example of the stringency of Connecticut's recently adopted
NOX control regulations are the Phase 2 emission limits
which will be, upon their enactment, among the most stringent limits
any state has adopted. Although not considered necessary to meet RACT
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, Connecticut understands that it will need to
perform another RACT certification once implementation of the 2015
ozone NAAQS is underway, and had the foresight to establish the
NOX emission limits that would likely be needed to
demonstrate RACT under the more stringent 2015 ozone NAAQS. This course
of action also provided businesses and industries in the State with
sufficient lead time to accomplish the planning needed to meet the
aggressive Phase 2 NOX emission limits. For these reasons,
we believe it is appropriate to propose approval of Connecticut's
certification that a RACT level of control is in place for major
sources of NOX.

f. Other Miscellaneous Revisions

    Additionally, in its January 24, 2017 SIP revision, Connecticut
requested that a number of citations within other sections of its air
pollution control regulations previously approved into the SIP be
updated to reflect citations to the two new NOX control
regulations that are replacing the State's original regulation, RCSA
section 22a-174-22. The sections affected are as follows: RCSA sections
22a-174-8(b)(2); 22a-174-18(j)(6); 22a-174-22c(g)(3); and 22a-174-
38(b)(6). Connecticut's January 24, 2017 and September 16, 2016
submittals also include the following miscellaneous revisions (not
related to the July 18, 2014 RACT certification) for which we are not
proposing any action at this time: RCSA sections 22a-174-3b,
subsections (a)(5) and (6); 22a-174-33(g)(1); 22a-174-42(a); 22a-354-
1(34)(K); and certain non-NOX related portions of 22a-174-
38. Lastly, we are proposing approval of negative declarations
Connecticut has made for the following CTG categories: Automobile
coatings, Large petroleum dry cleaners, Fiberglass boat manufacturing,
Equipment leaks from natural gas and gasoline processing plants,
Petroleum refineries, Control of refinery vacuum producing systems,
wastewater separators, and process unit turnarounds, and Flatwood
paneling coatings. Connecticut reviewed the inventory information,
interviewed field staff, and searched telephone and internet Web pages,
including other state government databases, to confirm that no
facilities exist in the State that are covered by the above mentioned
CTG categories.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's July 18, 2014 SIP
submittal that demonstrates, along with the other regulations proposed
for approval in today's action, that the State has adopted air
pollution control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of
compliance with the 2008 ozone standard. In this notice, we are
proposing approval of an update to an existing regulation limiting
emissions from MWCs, and a new regulation limiting emissions from major
sources of NOX as representing RACT. We are also proposing
approval of a new regulation limiting emissions from non-major sources
of NOX, and proposing approval of a number of minor edits
made to existing parts of Connecticut's air pollution control
regulations that were updated to make citations correctly reference the
State's newly adopted regulations. Last, we are proposing approval of a
number of negative declarations for CTG categories for which
Connecticut asserts no facilities exist within its borders.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies:
Section 22a-174-22e, Control of nitrogen oxide emissions from fuel-
burning equipment at major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides,
effective December 22, 2016; Section 22a-174-22f, High daily
NOX

emitting units at non-major sources of NOX, effective
December 22, 2016; Portions of section 22a-174-38, Municipal waste
combustors, effective August 2, 2016; Section 22a-174-8(b)(2),
effective December 22, 2016; Section 22a-174-18(j)(6), effective
December 22, 2016; Section 22a-174-22c(g)(3), effective December 22,
2016; and Section 22a-174-38(b)(6), effective December 22, 2016. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the appropriate EPA office.

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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 15, 2017.
 Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2017-06891 Filed 4-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50456-50459]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0166; FRL-8893-02-R6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for
Nonattainment New Source Review and Emission Statements for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the portions of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Texas that describes how CAA requirements for Nonattainment New Source
Review (NNSR) and emission statements are met in the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW), Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB), and Bexar County ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0166. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Todd, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The EPA Region 6 office is closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above if
you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the
docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
February 11, 2021 proposal (86 FR 9041). In that document we proposed
to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Texas
on June 24, 2020, that describes how CAA requirements for NNSR and
emission statements are met in the DFW, HGB, and Bexar County ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    We received comments on our proposal, from several commenters. Our
responses to the comments follow.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Two commenters pointed out that the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated
portions of the 2018 rule implementing the 2015 Ozone NAAQS that
allowed inter-precursor trading of pollutants.\1\ One commenter stated
that according to a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
guidance document, EPA's approval of inter-precursor trade (IPT) is
presumed unless EPA disapproves the trade during the public comment
period. The commenter also stated that EPA cannot rely on previous
approvals of the State's NNSR program to meet current requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: While the D.C. Circuit has rendered a judgment vacating
the portion of EPA's NNSR EPA regulation that allows inter-precursor
trading to meet the offset requirements for ozone, the ozone inter-
precursor trading component in the Texas NNSR program regulations is no
longer operative for ozone and thus does not preclude approval of this
SIP revision that otherwise satisfies NNSR requirements. The court held
that the IPT provision for ozone in EPA's NNSR regulation was contrary
to the CAA because ``[t]he plain language in the statute . . . requires
that increased [volatile organic compound] VOC emissions be offset with
reductions in VOC, and the same is true for ozone in most
circumstances.''\2\ Following the court's decision, EPA notified TCEQ
in a letter dated June 17, 2021, that the EPA can no longer approve any
IPT requests for ozone under procedures in the Texas SIP rules that
require that TCEQ submit such trades to EPA for approval. In a response
to EPA dated June 25, 2021, TCEQ confirmed that its NNSR inter-
precursor trading provisions cannot function without EPA's approval of
trades, and the State has not approved any IPT requests for ozone
without the prior approval of EPA.\3\ In its June 25,

2021, letter, TCEQ also stated that its regulations otherwise continue
to meet the NNSR program requirements in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
51.1565 without the operation of the IPT provisions for ozone. EPA
agrees with that assessment, as the NNSR offset requirement for ozone
may be satisfied under the Texas regulations with offsets for each
individual ozone precursor, without trading NOX for VOC or
vice-versa. Since the IPT portion of the Texas regulations is no longer
operative for ozone precursors, these provisions do not preclude EPA
from approving the Texas NNSR program regulations that otherwise meet
the SIP requirements for marginal nonattainment areas under the 2015
ozone NAAQS. EPA's approval finalized via this action does not include
TCEQ's IPT provisions for ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra Club, 985 F.3d at 1060-61.
    \3\ The text of each letter is available in the docket to this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA does not agree with the commenter that EPA's approval of an
inter-precursor trade would be presumed under the Texas SIP unless EPA
disapproved the trade during the comment period. EPA's previous
approval of certain SIP provisions related to IPTs included only Texas
regulations on that subject. EPA did not at any time approve the state
guidance document described by the commenter as part of the federally
approved SIP. Nothing in the previously-approved regulations
establishes a presumption of EPA approval of an inter-precursor trade
if EPA does not communicate its disapproval during a relevant public
notice and comment period. EPA's inability to approve IPT trades for
ozone because of the court decision is sufficient to render the Texas
IPT provisions inoperative for ozone.
    As stated in our proposal, NNSR permitting program requirements
specific to marginal ozone nonattainment areas are reflected in section
182(a)(2)(C), and further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I. EPA and
states may rely on previously approved SIP provisions to meet these
NNSR requirements, so long as the State provides a SIP revision
certifying that the existing SIP requirements are sufficient to meet
the requirements of the new classification as is being done here. As
stated in our proposal, a more stringent NNSR requirement than the
marginal requirements under the 2015 standard currently applies in the
DFW and HGB areas as both areas are classified serious nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone standard.
    Comment: One commenter believes that the State and EPA did not
adequately take climate change into consideration when forming air
quality standards and the future effects of increased average
temperatures on ozone concentrations.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concern and attention to
climate change. However, the climate change related issues raised by
the commenter are beyond the scope of our current action which is
limited to whether the State's emission statement provisions and
nonattainment new source review program, currently in their SIP, meet
the requirements set out by the CAA and associated EPA regulations.
This action does not set, revise, or form any air quality standards. We
refer the commenter to Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021, and
EPA's web page on climate change. (See https://www.epa.gov/climate-change).
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's 2015 Ozone NAAQS is
significantly higher than the World Health Organization's
recommendation of 50 parts per billion.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns related to ozone
pollution. However, the level of the NAAQS is beyond the scope of our
current action. EPA follows a separate and specific CAA process to set
and review the NAAQS, including ozone. See 80 FR 65292 (Oct. 26, 2015)
as well as CAA sections 108 and 109. That process is beyond the scope
of our current action. We refer the commenter to the EPA's ozone air
quality standards web page for more information. (See https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the City of San Antonio is not
adequately funding its pollution control plan.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns over funding and
implementation of air programs. Although somewhat unclear, EPA is
reading the comment in regard to the adequacy of funding for local,
voluntary pollution control programs as opposed to the State's ability
to carry out the SIP. As such, this comment is beyond the scope of this
action.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns over consumer use of
fragrant laundry related products. One commenter asked to eliminate
dryer sheets and chemically scented laundry detergents because such
products contain harmful chemicals that are contributing to the
depletion of ozone. Another commenter stated that consumer use of
fragrant laundry products, such as dryer sheets, other laundry
chemicals, and personal care products affect air quality and suggested
that the EPA should hold the manufacturers of these products
accountable. Further, the commenter stated that residential use of such
laundry products by a larger sector of residential dwellings is not a
small source of VOC emissions. The commenter stated that these are a
source of chemical irritants and that consumers should switch to more
environmentally friendly products. Lastly, the commenter asked EPA to
implement restrictions at the consumer level, if it had authority to do
so.
    Response: We appreciate the concerns raised by these commenters.
However, such concerns are beyond the scope of this action. This action
only pertains to CAA NNSR and emissions statement requirements for
facilities in the DFW, HGB, and Bexar County ozone nonattainment areas
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. As stated in our proposal, the NNSR program
applies to the construction of new major sources or major modifications
of existing sources of NOX or VOC in an area that is
designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. The NNSR requirements for
Marginal ozone nonattainment areas apply to facilities with the
potential to emit 100 tons per year of NOX or VOC. The
emissions statement requirement applies to the State in regard to
certain stationary sources of NOX and/or VOC emissions. CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B). States may choose to inventory emissions from
``any class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25
tons per year of'' VOC and/or NOX via use of emission
factors provided by EPA and compiled and reported for the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) every three years. Id. The last NEI was
produced for the year 2017. Further, it is beyond the scope of this
action to implement restrictions on consumer products.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Texas is emitting significantly
more carbon dioxide (CO2) per capita than New York and
implied this is not appropriate. The commenter also raised questions
concerning the impact of our action on the State's economy and
automotive industry in particular.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concern and attention to
CO2 emissions and economic impact of regulatory actions.
However, CO2 related issues, including the economic impact
of CO2 regulation on the automotive industry, are beyond the
scope of our current action explained above. The NNSR and emission
statement rules requirements are implemented for the control of ozone
and apply to NOX and VOCs as these pollutants are precursors
to ozone formation. These Clean Air Act requirements do not apply to
CO2 emissions. We refer the commenter to

Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021, and EPA's web page on
climate change. (See https://www.epa.gov/climate-change).

III. Final Action

    We are approving portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Texas on June 24, 2020, that describes how CAA requirements for
NNSR, and emission statements are met in the DFW, HGB, and Bexar County
ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 8, 2021. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 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 SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270(e), the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding the entry ``Nonattainment New Source Review
and Emission Statement Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable
                                 geographic or     State submittal/ effective      EPA approval
    Name of SIP provision        nonattainment                date                     date          Comments
                                     area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nonattainment New Source       Dallas-Fort       June 24, 2020.................  September 9,     ..............
 Review and Emission            Worth, Houston                                    2021, [Insert
 Statement Requirements for     Galveston-                                        Federal
 the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.          Brazoria, and                                     Register
                                Bexar County                                      citation].
                                Ozone
                                Nonattainment
                                Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-19156 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27874-27876]
[DOCID:fr17my07-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55747; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-48]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change to Trade the iShares MSCI Canada Index Fund
Pursuant to UTP

May 10, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 10, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. This notice and order provides notice of the proposed
rule change and approves the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to trade, on the CBOE Stock Exchange
(``CBSX''), shares (``Shares'') of iShares MSCI Canada Index Fund
(``Fund'') pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (``UTP''). The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's principal office, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to trade Shares of the Fund pursuant to
UTP. The Fund seeks to provide investment results that correspond
generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses,
of publicly traded securities in the Canadian market, as measured by
the MSCI Canada Index (``Index'').
    The Commission previously approved the original listing and trading
of the Shares on the American Stock Exchange (``Amex'').\3\
Subsequently, the Commission approved the listing and trading of the
Shares on the Pacific Exchange, which is now known as NYSE Arca (``NYSE
Arca'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36947 (March 8,
1996), 61 FR 10606 (March 14, 1996).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53230 (February 6,
2006), 71 FR 7594 (February 13, 2006) (approving SR-PCX-2005-116,
which permitted the listing and trading on the Pacific Exchange of
the Shares, as well as shares of other iShares MSCI international
index funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus
rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing
rules governing the trading of equity securities. The trading hours for

the Shares on CBSX will be 8:15 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. Central Time
(``CT''), unless the intraday indicative value (``IIV'') of the Fund is
not being calculated and widely disseminated before 8:30 a.m. CT, in
which case trading will begin at 8:30 a.m. CT; and unless Amex closes
trading at 3 p.m. CT, in which case trading will end at 3 p.m. CT.
    Quotations for and last sale information regarding the Shares are
disseminated through the Consolidated Quotation System. The value of
the Index is updated intra-day on a real-time basis as individual
component securities of the Index change in price. The intraday value
of the Index is disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading
day. In addition, a value for the Index is disseminated once each
trading day, based on closing prices in the relevant exchange markets.
    To provide updated information relating to the Shares for use by
investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem them,
Amex disseminates through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape
Association the IIV for the Fund as calculated by a securities
information provider. The IIV is disseminated on a per-share basis
every 15 seconds during regular trading hours. CBOE Rule 52.3 provides
that, if the IIV ceases to be widely available, CBSX would cease
trading the Shares.
    In connection with the trading of the Shares, the Exchange would
inform members and member organizations in an Information Circular of
the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the
Shares, including how they are created and redeemed, the prospectus or
product description delivery requirements applicable to the Shares,
applicable Exchange rules, how information about the value of the
underlying Index is disseminated, and trading information. In addition,
before a member recommends a transaction in the Shares, the member must
determine that the Shares are suitable for the customer as required by
CBOE Rule 53.6.
    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all
relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend
trading in the Shares. Trading may be halted because of market
conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make
trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to
which trading is not occurring in the securities comprising the
underlying index and/or financial instruments of the Fund, or (2)
whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the
maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition,
trading in the Shares would be subject to trading halts caused by
extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's ``circuit
breaker'' rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CBOE Rule 6.3B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the Exchange represents that it would cease trading the
Shares if the listing market stops trading the Shares because of a
regulatory halt similar to a halt based on CBOE Rule 6.3. UTP trading
in the Shares is also governed by the trading halts provisions of CBOE
Rule 52.3 relating to temporary interruptions in the calculation or
wide dissemination of the IIV or the value of the underlying index.
    The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance
procedures applicable to equity security products to monitor trading in
the Shares. The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate
to monitor Exchange trading of the Shares.
2. Statutory Basis
    CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.
    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that an
exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect
investors and the public interest. In addition, CBOE believes that the
proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the Act \7\ because it
deems Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the
Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading
of equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-48 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-48. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-CBOE-2007-48 and should be submitted on or before June
7, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national

securities exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\
which requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other
things, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and in general to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should
benefit investors by increasing competition among markets that trade
the Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 12(f) of the Act,\10\ which permits an exchange to trade,
pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another
exchange.\11\ The Commission notes that it previously approved the
listing and trading of the Shares on Amex and NYSE Arca.\12\ The
Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5
under the Act,\13\ which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP
to a security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules
providing for transactions in the class or type of security to which
the exchange extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets
this requirement because it deems the Shares to be equity securities,
thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing
rules governing the trading of equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \11\ Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78l(a), generally
prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national
securities exchange unless the security is registered on that
exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act
excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an
exchange ``extends UTP.'' When an exchange extends UTP to a
security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were
listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so
listed and registered.
    \12\ See supra notes 3 and 4.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission further believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\14\ which sets forth
Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for
the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Quotations for and last-sale information regarding the
Shares are disseminated through the facilities of the CTA and the
Consolidated Quotation System. In addition, the IIV of the Fund is
disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day by the
national securities exchange on which the Fund is listed or by other
information providers or market data vendors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposal is
reasonably designed to preclude trading of the Shares when transparency
is impaired. CBOE Rule 52.3 sets forth trading halt procedures when
CBOE trades the Shares pursuant to UTP. Under this rule, if the listing
market halts trading when the IIV is not being calculated or widely
disseminated, CBOE also would halt trading in the Shares. This rule is
substantially similar to those recently adopted by other exchanges and
found by the Commission to be consistent with the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34; Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54997 (December 21, 2006), 71 FR 78501
(December 29, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by the
listing market, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade
the Shares pursuant to this order.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following
representations:
    1. The Exchange's surveillance procedures are adequate to properly
monitor Exchange trading of the Shares and to deter and detect
violations of Exchange rules.
    2. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange would inform
its members and member organizations in an Information Circular of the
special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares.
    3. The Information Circular would include the requirement that
members and member firms deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing
newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a
transaction.

This approval order is conditioned on the Exchange's adherence to these
representations.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before
the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register. As noted previously, the Commission previously found
the listing and trading of the Shares on Amex and NYSE Arca to be
consistent with the Act. The Commission presently is not aware of any
regulatory issue that should cause it to revisit that finding or would
preclude the trading of the Shares on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.
Therefore, accelerating approval of this proposal should benefit
investors by creating, without undue delay, additional competition in
the market for the Shares.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\16\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-48) be and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9468 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26639-26640]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11932]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9961-90]

Receipt of Two Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces EPA's receipt of two initial filings
of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various
commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification

(ID) Number and the Pesticide Petition Number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), main telephone number: (703)
305-7090, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA
seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health
impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of two pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA is taking public comment on the
requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any
particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this document contain the data or information
prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to
evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may
be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide
petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance Exemptions

    PP 6F8541. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0113). Bayer CropScience LP 2 T.W.
Alexander Dr. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part
174 for residues of the plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry14Ab-1 in or on soybean. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because this petition is a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical
limitation, thus an analytical detection method should not be required.
    PP IN-11022. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0115). Bayer CropScience LP 2 T.W.
Alexander Dr. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 174 for
residues of the PIP inert ingredient 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate
deoxygenase (HPPD-4) in all food commodities. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because this petition is a temporary
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical
limitation, thus an analytical detection method should not be required.

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: May 10, 2017.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-11932 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11213-11214]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0138]

Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC) will
meet on March 14-15, 2013 to discuss matters relating to medical
certification determinations for issuance of merchant mariner
credentials, medical standards and guidelines for physical
qualifications of operators of commercial vessels, medical examiner
education, and medical research. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: MEDMAC will meet on Thursday, March 14, and Friday, March 15,
2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may
close early if the committee has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Houston Pilots facility, 203
Deerwood Glen Drive, Deer Park, TX 77536.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC Alternate Designated Federal Officer
(ADFO),<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. Comments must be submitted in writing to the
Coast Guard on or before March 4, 2013 and must be identified by USCG-
2011-0138 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). If you
would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee in advance of the meeting, please provide an electronic copy
to the ADFO, no later than March 4, 2013. Your materials will be placed
on the MEDMAC Web site https://homeport.uscg.mil to be made available
to the members of the committee and the public.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
enter ``USCG-2011-0138'' in the ``SEARCH'' box.
    A public comment period will be held on March 14, 2013, from
approximately 9:15 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., and on March 15, 2013 from
approximately 4:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Speakers are requested to limit
their comments to 5 minutes. Please note that the public comment period
may end before the time indicated, following the last call for
comments. Additionally, public comment will be sought throughout the
meeting as specific tasks and issues are discussed by the committee.
Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ashley Holm, the MEDMAC
ADFO, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call
Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The
MEDMAC is authorized by 46 U.S.C. 7115 as amended by section 210 of the
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) and advises the
Secretary on matters related to (a) Medical certification
determinations for issuance of licenses, certificates of registry, and
merchant mariners' documents; (b) medical standards and guidelines for
the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (c)
medical examiner education; and (d) medical research.

Agenda

Day 1, March 14

    (1) Remarks from Presiding Officer of the Houston Pilots, Captain
Robert Thompson.
    (2) Opening comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Captain
K.P. McAvoy.
    (3) Remarks from the Director of Inspections and Compliance,
Captain P.F. Thomas.
    (4) Introduction and swearing in of the new member, Chair and Vice-
Chair designations.
    (5) Review of Last Full Committee Meeting's Minutes.
    (6) Public Comments.
    (7) Working Groups reports out.
    (8) Working Groups addressing the following task statements may
meet to deliberate--
    (a) Task Statement 1, Revision of Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 04-08. The NVIC can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/ Medical and Physical Guidelines for Merchant Mariner
Credentials.
    (b) Task Statement 2, Top medical conditions leading to denial of
mariner credentials.
    (c) Task Statement 4, Revising the CG-719K Medical Evaluation
Report Form for mariner physicals. The form can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/nmc.
    (d) Task Statement 5, Creating medical expert panels for the top
medical conditions.
    (e) Task Statement 6, Developing designated medical examiner
program.

Day 2, March 15

    (1) Presentation by the Heart Rhythm Society (Task 1 & 2).
    (2) Continue work on Task Statements.
    (3) By mid-afternoon, the Working Groups will report, and if
applicable, make recommendations for the full committee to consider for
presentation to the Coast Guard. The committee may take official action
on these recommendations on this date. The public will have an
opportunity to speak after each Working Group's Report before the full
committee takes any action on each report.
    (4) Public Comments.
    (5) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    Dated: February 8, 2013.
P.F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-03548 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P