[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69313-69316]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26444]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93686; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-100]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6.4-O
To Allow Monday and Wednesday Expirations for Options Listed Pursuant
to the Short Term Option Series Program on the iShares Russell 2000 ETF
(``IWM'')

December 1, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 22, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open
for Trading) to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options
listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series Program on the iShares
Russell 2000 ETF. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-O (Series of Options Open
for Trading) to permit Monday and Wednesday expirations for options
listed pursuant to the Short Term Option Series Program (the ``STOS
Program'') on the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (``IWM''). This is a
competitive filing that is based on a proposal recently submitted by
Nasdaq Phlx LLC (``Phlx'') and approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 93157 (September 28,
2021), 86 FR 54749 (October 4, 2021) (SR-PHLX-2021-43) (order
approving Phlx rule change).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Short Term Option Series is a series in an option class that is
approved for listing and trading on the Exchange in which the series is
opened for trading on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or
Friday that is a business day and that expires on the Monday, Wednesday
or Friday of the next business week, or, in the case of a series that
is listed on a Friday and expires on a Monday, is listed one business
week and one business day prior to that expiration.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Short Term Option Series'' is a series in an
option class that is approved for listing and trading on the
Exchange in which the series is opened for trading on any Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday that is a business day and
that expires on the Monday, Wednesday or Friday of the next business
week, or, in the case of a series that is listed on a Friday and
expires on a Monday, is listed one business week and one business
day prior to that expiration. If a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or
Friday is not a business day, the series may be opened (or shall
expire) on the first business day immediately prior to that Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, respectively. For a series listed
pursuant to this section for Monday expiration, if a Monday is not a
business day, the series shall expire on the first business day
immediately following that Monday. See Rule 6.1-O(b)(41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Commentary .07 to Rule 6.4-O to
permit the listing of options series that expire on Mondays and
Wednesdays in IWM.
Monday Expirations
    As proposed, with respect to Monday IWM Expirations within
Commentary .07(g) to Rule 6.4-O, the Exchange may open for trading on
any Friday or Monday that is a business day series of options on IWM to
expire on any Monday of the month that is a business day and is not a
Monday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class expire
(``Monday IWM Expirations''), provided that Monday IWM Expirations that
are listed on a Friday must be listed at least one business week and
one business day prior to the expiration. The Exchange may list up to
five consecutive Monday IWM Expirations at one time; the Exchange may
have no more than a total of five Monday IWM Expirations.
Wednesday Expirations
    As proposed, with respect to Wednesday IWM Expirations within
Commentary .07(g) to Rule 6.4-O, the Exchange may open for trading on
any Tuesday or Wednesday that is a business day series of options on
IWM to expire on any Wednesday of the month that is a business day and
is not a Wednesday in which Quarterly Options Series on the same class
expire (``Wednesday IWM Expirations''). The Exchange may list up to
five consecutive Wednesday IWM Expirations at one time; the Exchange

may have no more than a total of five Wednesday IWM Expirations.
Monday and Wednesday Expirations
    The interval between strike prices for the proposed Monday and
Wednesday IWM Expirations will be the same as those for the current
Short Term Option Series for Wednesday and Friday expirations
applicable to the STOS Program.\7\ Specifically, the Monday and
Wednesday IWM Expirations will have a $0.50 strike interval minimum.\8\
As is the case with other equity options series listed pursuant to the
STOS Program, the Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations series will be
P.M.-settled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Commentary .07(e) to Rule 6.4-O.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 6.1-O(b)(41), with respect to the STOS Program, if
Monday is not a business day the series shall expire on the first
business day immediately following that Monday. This procedure differs
from the expiration date of Wednesday expiration series that are
scheduled to expire on a holiday. Pursuant to Rule 6.1-O(b)(41), a
Wednesday expiration series shall expire on the first business day
immediately prior to that Wednesday, e.g., Tuesday of that week, if the
Wednesday is not a business day. For purposes of IWM, the Exchange
believes that it is preferable to require Monday expiration series in
this scenario to expire on the Tuesday of that week rather than the
previous business day, e.g., the previous Friday, since the Tuesday is
closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the series than the
previous Friday, and therefore may be more representative of
anticipated market conditions. Monday SPY and QQQ expirations are
treated in this manner today.\9\ Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') uses
the same procedure for options on the S&P 500 index (``SPX''), Mini-SPX
Index Options (``XSP''), Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'') and Mini-Russell
2000 Index Options (``MRUT'') and with Monday expirations that are
listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Program and that
are scheduled to expire on a holiday.\10\ Also Nasdaq Phlx \11\ and
Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') \12\ also use the same procedure for options
on the Nasdaq-100[supreg] (``NDX'') with Monday expirations that are
listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Commentary .07 to Rule 6.4-O.
    \10\ See Cboe Rule 4.13(e)(1).
    \11\ See Phlx Options 4A, Section 12(b)(5).
    \12\ See ISE Supplementary Material .07 to Options 4A, Section
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, for each option class eligible for participation in the
STOS Program, the Exchange is limited to opening thirty (30) series for
each expiration date for the specific class.\13\ The thirty (30) series
restriction does not include series that are open by other securities
exchanges under their respective short term options rules; the Exchange
may list these additional series that are listed by other
exchanges.\14\ This thirty (30) series restriction would apply to
Monday and Wednesday IWM Expiration series as well. In addition, the
Exchange will be able to list series that are listed by other
exchanges, assuming they file similar rules with the Commission to list
IWM options expiring on Mondays and Wednesdays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Commentary .07(c) to Rule 6.4-O.
    \14\ See Rule 6.4A-O(b)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is amending Commentary .07(a) to Rule 6.4-O,
which addresses the listing of Short Term Option Series that expire in
the same week as monthly or quarterly options series.\15\ Currently,
that rule states that no Short Term Option Series may expire in the
same week in which monthly option series on the same class expire (with
the exception of Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ Expirations) or, in
the case of Quarterly Options Series, on an expiration that coincides
with an expiration of Quarterly Options Series on the same class.\16\
As with Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ Expirations, the Exchange is
proposing to permit Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations to expire in
the same week as monthly options series on the same class. The Exchange
believes that it is reasonable to extend this exemption to Monday and
Wednesday IWM Expirations because Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations
and standard monthly options will not expire on the same trading day,
as standard monthly options expire on Fridays. Additionally, the
Exchange believes that not listing Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations
for one week every month because there was a monthly IWM expiration on
the Friday of that week would create investor confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange also proposes to make a conforming change to
Commentary .07(a) to Rule 6.4-O to include reference to Rule 6.4-
O(g) (as modified) to include reference to Monday and Wednesday IWM
Expirations. See proposed Commentary .07(a) to Rule 6.4-O.
    \16\ See Commentary .07(g) to Rule 6.4-O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe that any market disruptions will be
encountered with the introduction of P.M.-settled Monday and Wednesday
IWM Expirations. The Exchange has the necessary capacity and
surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading
in the proposed Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations. The Exchange
currently trades P.M.-settled Short Term Option Series that expire
Monday and Wednesday for SPY and QQQ and has not experienced any market
disruptions nor issues with capacity. The Exchange currently has
surveillance programs in place to support and properly monitor trading
in Short Term Option Series that expire Monday and Wednesday for SPY
and QQQ.
    Similar to SPY and QQQ, the introduction of Monday and Wednesday
IWM Expirations will, among other things, expand hedging tools
available to market participants and continue the reduction of the
premium cost of buying protection. The Exchange believes that Monday
and Wednesday IWM Expirations will allow market participants to
purchase IWM based on their timing as needed and allow them to tailor
their investment and hedging needs more effectively.
2. Statutory Basis
    For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \17\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\18\
in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, 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 by providing the investing public and
other market participants more flexibility to closely tailor their
investment and hedging decisions in IWM options, thus allowing them to
better manage their risk exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the STOS Program has been
successful to date and that Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations should
simply expand the ability of investors to hedge risk against market
movements stemming from economic releases or market events that occur
throughout the month in the same way that the STOS Program has expanded
the landscape of hedging. Similarly, the Exchange believes Monday and
Wednesday IWM Expirations should create greater trading and hedging
opportunities, as well as flexibility that will provide Members with
the ability to tailor their investment objectives more effectively.
    The Exchange currently lists Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ

Expirations.\19\ Also, Cboe currently permits Monday and Wednesday
expirations for other options with a weekly expiration, such as options
on SPX, XSP, RUT, and MRUT pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot Program.\20\ Phlx \21\ and ISE \22\ currently permit Monday and
Wednesday expirations for other options with a weekly expiration on NDX
pursuant to their Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Commentary .07(a) and (g) to Rule 6.4-O.
    \20\ Supra note 10.
    \21\ Supra note 11.
    \22\ Supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of Monday expiration series that are scheduled
to expire on a holiday, there are no material differences in the
treatment of Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations for Short Term Option
Series. The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to
treat Monday expiration series that expire on a holiday differently
than Wednesday or Friday expiration series, since the proposed
treatment for Monday expiration series will result in an expiration
date that is closer in time to the scheduled expiration date of the
series, and therefore may be more representative of anticipated market
conditions. Monday SPY and QQQ expirations are treated in this manner
today.\23\ Cboe \24\ uses the same procedure for SPX, XSP, RUT, and
MRUT options with Monday expirations that are scheduled to expire on a
holiday, as do Phlx \25\ and ISE \26\ for NDX options with Monday
expirations that are listed pursuant to their Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot Programs, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Commentary .07(a) to Rule 6.4-O.
    \24\ Supra note 10.
    \25\ Supra note 11.
    \26\ Supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the similarities between Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ
Expirations and the proposed Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations, the
Exchange believes that applying the provisions in Commentary .07(a) to
Rule 6.4-O, which currently apply to Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ
Expirations, to Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations is justified. For
example, the Exchange believes that allowing Monday and Wednesday IWM
Expirations and monthly IWM expirations in the same week will benefit
investors and minimize investor confusion by providing Monday and
Wednesday IWM Expirations in a continuous and uniform manner. The
Exchange also believes that it is appropriate to amend Commentary
.07(a) to Rule 6.4-O, to clarify that no Short Term Option Series may
expire on the same day as an expiration of Quarterly Options Series on
the same class, same as SPY and QQQ. The Exchange also believes the
non-substantive conforming change to Commentary .07(a) to Rule 6.4-O
would add clarity and transparency to the STOS Program to the benefit
of investors.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance
program in place to detect manipulative trading in Monday and Wednesday
expirations, including Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations, in the
same way that it monitors trading in the current Short Term Option
Series and trading in Monday and Wednesday SPY and QQQ Expirations. The
Exchange also represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to
support the new options series. Finally, the Exchange does not believe
that any market disruptions will be encountered with the introduction
of Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as
indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being
proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Phlx.\28\
The Exchange also notes that having Monday and Wednesday IWM
Expirations is not a novel proposal, as Monday and Wednesday SPY and
QQQ Expirations are currently listed on the Exchange.\29\ Cboe uses the
same procedure for SPX, XSP, RUT, and MRUT options with Monday
expirations that are listed pursuant to its Nonstandard Expirations
Pilot Program and that are scheduled to expire on a holiday,\30\ as do
Phlx \31\ and ISE \32\ for NDX options with Monday expirations that are
listed pursuant to their Nonstandard Expirations Pilot Programs,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 5 (approval of Phlx filing).
    \29\ See Commentary .07 to Rule 6.4-O.
    \30\ Supra note 10.
    \31\ Supra note 11.
    \32\ Supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden
on intra-market competition, as all market participants will be treated
in the same manner under this proposal. Additionally, the Exchange does
not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market
competition, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from
proposing similar rules to list and trade Short-Term Option Series with
Monday and Wednesday expirations.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \33\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \34\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of
its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \35\ permits the Commission
to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission notes that it recently approved Phlx's substantially similar
proposal to list and trade Monday IWM Expirations and Wednesday IWM
Expirations.\36\ The Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
as it would encourage fair competition among exchanges by allowing the
Exchange to compete effectively with Phlx by having the ability to list
and trade the same Monday and Wednesday IWM Expirations that Phlx is
able to list and trade. For these reasons, the Commission believes that
the proposed

rule change presents no novel issues and that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, and will allow the Exchange to remain competitive with
other exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change operative upon
filing.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \36\ See supra note 5.
    \37\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-100 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-100. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-100 and should be
submitted on or before December 28, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-26444 Filed 12-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56757-56758]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 4, 2021.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                          Special Permits Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Nature of the
 Application No.     Applicant      Regulation(s)      special permits
                                       affected            thereof
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8215-M            Olin Winchester  172.320,         To modify the
                   LLC.             172.400,         special permit to
                                    173.212,         authorize an
                                    173.56(b),       additional
                                    173.62(c).       packaging type and
                                                     an additional
                                                     facility. (modes 1,
                                                     2).
10232-M           Illinois Tool    173.304(d),      To modify the
                   Works Inc.       173.167,         special permit to
                                    173.306(i).      remove an obsolete
                                                     proper shipping
                                                     name from the
                                                     special permit.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                     5).
11634-M           The Avon         172.301(c),      To modify the
                   Company.         173.24a(a)(3).   special permit to
                                                     authorize a new
                                                     proper shipping
                                                     name to replace an
                                                     obsolete proper
                                                     shipping name in
                                                     the special permit.
                                                     (mode 1).
11646-M           Baker Petrolite  172.203(a),      To modify the
                   LLC.             172.301(c),      special permit to
                                    177.834(h).      authorize an
                                                     additional
                                                     hazardous material.
                                                     (mode 1).
12184-M           Weldship LLC...  173.302a(b)(2),  To modify the
                                    173.302a(b)(3)   special permit to
                                    ,                clarify the
                                    173.302a(b)(4)   packaging testing
                                    ,                requirements.
                                    173.302a(b)(5)   (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
                                    , 180.205(c),
                                    180.205(f),
                                    180.205(g),
                                    180.205(i),
                                    180.209(a),
                                    180.213.
14574-M           CMC Materials    180.407(c),      To modify the
                   EC, Inc.         180.407(e),      special permit to
                                    180.407(f).      authorize an
                                                     additional cargo
                                                     tank. (mode 1).
20493-M           Tesla, Inc.....  172.101(j).....  To modify the
                                                     special permit to
                                                     include additional
                                                     cell types for use
                                                     in the lithium ion
                                                     battery. (mode 4).
21144-M           Consolidated     173.56(b)......  To modify the
                   Nuclear                           special permit to
                   Security LLC.                     increase the
                                                     maximum quantity
                                                     per shipment to
                                                     3,025 gallons.
                                                     (modes 1, 4).
21167-M           KULR Technology  173.185(a)(1),   To modify the
                   Corporation.     172.101(j),      special permit to
                                    173.185(b)(3).   authorize
                                                     alternative inner
                                                     packaging. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4).
21193-M           KULR Technology  172.200,         To modify the
                   Corporation.     172.300,         special permit to
                                    172.700(a),      authorize
                                    172.400,         alternative inner
                                    172.500,         packaging. (modes
                                    172.600,         1, 2).
                                    173.185(f).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-22157 Filed 10-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37-45]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31562]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0958; FRL-9765-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake
County and Davis County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of
Utah on March 22, 2007. The SIP revision is the State of Utah's
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake
County and Davis County, along with associated rules: R307-101-2,
``Definitions;'' R307-110-13, ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area
and Point Sources, Part D, Ozone;'' R307-320, ``Ozone Maintenance Areas
and Ogden City: Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program;'' R307-325,
``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General Requirements;''
R307-326, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control of
Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries;'' R307-327, ``Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum Liquid Storage;'' R307-
328, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah and Weber
Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage;'' R307-335, ``Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning
Operations;'' R307-340, ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Surface Coating Processes;'' R307-341, ``Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Areas: Cutback Asphalt;'' and R307-342, ``Ozone
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Qualification of Contractors and
Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery
Tanks.'' This action is being taken under sections 107 and 110 of the
Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0958, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0958. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittals
III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County
IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule Revisions
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background of State Submittals

A. Regulatory Context

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) enacted in 1970, EPA established
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive
air pollutants, such as photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide, and
particulate matter. The NAAQS represent concentration levels below
which public health and welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also
required states to adopt and submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    From time-to-time, the CAA requires SIP revisions to account for
new or amended NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA
was significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA
promulgated attainment status designations for all areas of the country
with respect to the NAAQS.
    The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS,
and in 1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 0.12 ppm for ozone,
averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of
0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas designated
nonattainment for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone
as well. Part D of CAA Title I requires special measures for areas
designated nonattainment. In 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP for the 1-
hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake County and Davis County
nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
    Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the
1990 Amendments, each area of the country that was designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including Salt Lake County
and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the
severity of the area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment
designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, as
amended in 1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of
law as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1).
    Under CAA section 175A, states may request redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment if monitoring data showed that the
area has met the NAAQS and if the area meets certain other
requirements. On July 18, 1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were
found to be attaining the 1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July
17, 1997, EPA approved the State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and
Davis Counties to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. As part of
that action, EPA approved the State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62
FR 38213).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm
(62 FR 38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone
standard. On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas of the country for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA designated all areas
in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis County, as
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR
23940).
    Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS
(69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA
established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those areas
that were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at
the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or that were
redesignated to ``attainment'' but subject to a maintenance plan, as is
the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These requirements are
codified at 40 CFR 51.905.
    In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 22, 2007,
the Governor of Utah submitted a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County, and associated
rule revisions. In this notice, EPA is proposing to act on this March
22, 2007 maintenance plan and rule revisions.
    In 2008, EPA promulgated a lower 8-hour ozone standard--0.075 ppm.
73 FR 16436. The 2008 ozone standard retains the same general form and
averaging time as the 0.08 ppm standard set in 1997. Effective July 20,
2012, Salt Lake County and Davis County were designated Unclassifiable/
Attainment for this lower standard. 77 FR 30088, 30151.

B. Ambient Ozone Conditions

    The 1997 ozone NAAQS is attained when the three-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone
concentration (also referred to as the ``design value'') is less than
or equal to 0.08 ppm at all monitoring sites within an air quality
planning area. Forty CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3, directs that
the third decimal place of the computed three-year average be rounded;
values equal to or greater than 0.005 are rounded up. Thus, under our
regulations, a computed three-year ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is
the smallest value that is considered to be greater than 0.08 ppm and,
thus, a violation of the standard.
    A review of the data gathered at the ozone monitoring sites in Salt
Lake County and Davis County from 2000-2011 \1\ shows the area has been
attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS except for the 2005-2007 period, which
had a design value of 0.085 ppm. As noted above, EPA designated Salt
Lake County and Davis County unclassifiable/attainment for the lower
2008 ozone standard (0.075 ppm) based on monitored values for 2008-
2010. The following table shows design values for each year from 2000
through 2011:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data for 2012 have not been certified yet.

                              Table 1--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Three-Year Average of the 4th Highest Ozone Value (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monitoring site (county)       2000-2002   2001-2003   2002-2004   2003-2005   2004-2006   2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach (Salt Lake)...............       0.081       0.081       0.078       0.079       0.081       0.083       0.079       0.076       0.072       0.072
Bountiful (Davis)...............       0.082       0.083       0.078       0.079       0.080       0.085       0.080       0.077       0.074       0.071
Cottonwood (Salt Lake)..........       0.076       0.080       0.079       0.080       0.080       0.083       0.082       0.077       0.075       0.073
Hawthorne (Salt Lake)...........       0.077       0.080       0.078       0.077       0.077       0.081       0.078       0.076       0.074       0.074
Herriman (Salt Lake)............       0.078       0.076       0.076       0.076       0.078       0.080     \2\ n/a         n/a         n/a         n/a
West Valley (Salt Lake).........       0.079       0.080       0.076       0.078       0.078       0.081     \2\ n/a         n/a         n/a         n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Analysis of the Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County

    As noted above, 40 CFR 51.905 requires a maintenance plan for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.
In the case of areas like Salt Lake County and Davis County, that have
an approved maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard and are
unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour standard, 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4)(ii) specifies that the maintenance plan must provide for
continued maintenance of the 8-hour standard for 10 years following
designation--i.e., until 2014--and must include contingency measures.
In May 20, 2005 guidance entitled ``Maintenance Plan Guidance Document
for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air
Act'' (``2005 guidance''), EPA provided its interpretations of the
components that 40 CFR 51.905 maintenance plans should include. These
components are: (1) An attainment inventory, (2) a maintenance
demonstration, (3) ambient air quality monitoring, (4) a contingency
plan, and (5) verification of continued attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ These two monitors were shut down in Sept. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4)(i) restricts states from removing
certain ``applicable requirements,'' as defined in 40 CFR 51.900(f),
from the SIP. States may shift applicable requirements to contingency
measures if such a shift is consistent with CAA sections 110(l) and
193. As a general proposition, EPA may not approve a SIP revision that
is inconsistent with CAA section 110(l) or CAA section 193.
    Below, we evaluate whether the Utah maintenance plan is consistent
with the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, as we have
interpreted them.

A. Attainment Emission Inventory

    As recommended by EPA, the State used 2002 as the year for the
maintenance plan's attainment inventory, and the inventory reflects
typical summer day emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). The emission inventory is divided
into four major source categories: point sources, area sources, mobile
sources, and naturally occurring biogenic sources. Mobile sources are
further divided into on-road and non-road categories. The following
tables present the 2002 attainment inventory, as well as the State's
projected inventories through 2014.

                Table 2--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for VOCs (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2005         2008         2011         2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source...................................        11.24        11.21        11.66        11.96        12.36
Area Source....................................        89.32        92.42        96.30       101.86       107.75
Biogenic Source................................       120.26       120.26       120.26       120.26       120.26
Mobile On-Road.................................        57.66        44.70        35.36        29.11        24.52
Mobile Non-Road................................        29.55        25.47        20.90        18.42        16.57
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................       308.03       294.06       284.48       281.61       281.46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment.....................................       308.03       308.03       308.03       308.03       308.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table 3--Salt Lake and Davis Counties Source Category Totals for NOX (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2002         2005         2008         2011         2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Source...................................        39.27        38.09        37.78        36.75        36.82
Area Source....................................        11.36        10.08        10.79        11.82        12.82
Mobile On-Road.................................        98.89        85.52        65.47        49.45        35.92
Mobile Non-Road................................        83.87        80.35        72.56        63.48        51.30
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................       233.39       214.04       186.60       161.50       136.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment.....................................       233.39       233.39       233.39       233.39       233.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance and we find that it accurately portrays typical summer day
emissions during the 2002 ozone season (June-August).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    Under EPA's interpretation of the CAA and its regulations,
maintenance of an ozone standard generally may be

demonstrated through modeling or through an emissions inventory
approach. Utah chose the latter approach, which involves a showing that
future emissions of ozone precursors will not exceed the level of such
precursors in the attainment year inventory.
    The maintenance plan's projections, as reflected in Tables 2 and 3
above, show that future emissions of VOCs and NOX will not
exceed the 2002 inventory values. However, primarily due to high
monitored ambient ozone concentrations in the 2005 ozone season, the
area recorded a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the
2005-2007 seasons. This violation casts doubt on the use of the 2002
emissions inventories as representative of the levels of emissions that
are consistent with maintaining the standard. However, the
circumstances presented here provide countervailing considerations:
    1. Since the time of the area's designation to attainment in 2004,
the only monitored violation occurred during 2005-2007. As stated
above, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is attained at a design value of
0.084, and the design value for 2005-2007 was 0.085 ppm--the lowest
value that can represent a violation.
    2. In 2005, the area monitored significantly higher 4th high
maximum values than it had monitored in the previous four years and
than it has monitored since.
    3. In 2006-2008, the area immediately returned to attainment and
has continued to attain the standard. Complete quality-assured data for
2007-2009, 2008-2010, 2009-2011, and preliminary data for 2012, show
that the area has continuously maintained the standard.
    4. Under the applicable regulatory requirement, 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4), the State must demonstrate maintenance for ten years
after designation, or until 2014.
    5. In evaluating the potential for the area, given its continued
maintenance during and subsequent to 2008, EPA takes into consideration
the fact that, in order for the area to violate the standard in 2013-
2014, the area would have to experience significantly higher 4th high
maximums than it experienced in 2005. We find this prospect to be
highly unlikely, particularly given the State's projected emissions
trends, as reflected in Tables 2 and 3 above.
    6. Mobile source emissions account for a very large portion of the
overall emissions inventory, and federal motor vehicle control
standards, combined with fleet turnover, will continue to reduce
relevant emissions through 2014.
    Based on this unique combination of factors, we are proposing to
approve the maintenance demonstration. However, we are also proposing
disapproval in the alternative should comments convince us that
approval is not consistent with the CAA.

C. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA's 2005 guidance indicates that, ``The State should continue to
operate air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR 58 to verify
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard in the area.'' The maintenance
plan (section 4) describes the ozone monitoring network, presents
monitoring data, and includes the State's commitment to continue to
operate and maintain an adequate monitoring network in accordance with
40 CFR 58. For the period 1999 through 2005, there were six ozone
monitors in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. The plan indicates that the
State will continue to conduct annual reviews of the network and gain
EPA approval before making any changes to the existing network.
    Regarding verification of continued attainment, our guidance
indicates that the plan should indicate how the State will track the
progress of the maintenance plan. One option mentioned is to
periodically update the emission inventory. In the maintenance plan,
the State includes a section 7 entitled, ``Verification of Continued
Ozone Maintenance.'' In it, the State commits to update the VOC and
NOX emission inventories for Salt Lake and Davis Counties at
least once every three years, and to compare the updated inventories to
the plan's projections to verify that emissions are within acceptable
limits to maintain the standard. EPA is proposing to approve this
section of the maintenance plan.

D. Contingency Measures

    EPA's 2005 guidance states that the contingency plan should include
measures to ensure that a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
promptly corrected. EPA's interpretation of the section 51.905
contingency measures requirement is consistent with its interpretation
of the CAA section 175A contingency plan requirement. Thus, the plan
must include the State's enforceable commitment to adopt and implement
the contingency measures in a timely fashion once they're triggered.
The plan must identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit
for action by the State.
    A pre-adopted contingency measure is not required; rather, the plan
may include a list of potential measures from which the State could
choose should a violation occur. The purpose of the contingency
measures is to achieve VOC and/or NOX emission reductions to
correct a violation.
    The State's maintenance plan provides that the contingency trigger
date is the date that certified data show that a monitored violation of
the 1997 ozone standard has occurred. The maintenance plan describes
the State's timeline to implement contingency measures. Within 60 days
of the contingency trigger date, the Utah Division of Air Quality will
begin evaluation of potential contingency measures. Within 180 days of
the contingency trigger date, the Division of Air Quality will present
the recommended contingency measures to the Utah Air Quality Board. The
Air Quality Board will then hold public hearings to consider the
recommended contingency measures along with any other contingency
measures the Air Quality Board deems appropriate. The plan indicates
that the necessary contingency measures will be adopted and implemented
within 24 months of the contingency trigger date.
    Possible contingency measures include:
    1. Alert Day Enhancements--A public outreach campaign to educate
individuals of smart choices, such as discouraging refueling vehicles
or mowing lawns during peak ozone periods.
    2. Reduction of Truck Stop Idling--The plan indicates that Utah
could adopt a rule limiting vehicle idling time while vehicles are not
actually moving.
    3. Heavy Equipment Emission Control Program--According to the plan,
this ``could include incentives to encourage after-market retrofit of
heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and increased use of
compressed natural gas-fueled school and [Utah Transit Authority]
buses.''
    4. Reduce Emissions of VOCs--Voluntary commitments or regulatory
measures to reduce VOC emissions from major sources.
    5. Identification of High-Polluting Vehicles--Use of remote sensing
technology to identify smoking or high-polluting vehicles and provide
incentives for repair of these vehicles.
    6. Establish an Offset Ratio for NOX--Lower the
threshold at which offsets are required for new NOX sources.
    7. Implement More Effective Low-NOX Burner Controls--
Require sources to replace existing burners with low-NOX
burners.

    8. Other VOC or NOX emission control measures as
appropriate.
    On November 2, 2006, during the State's public comment period on
its draft maintenance plan, we provided comments to the State on the
proposed contingency measure portion of the plan. We noted that several
of the contingency measures included on the State's list of potential
measures were voluntary measures. We advised the State that voluntary
measures do not function or qualify as contingency measures. The State
disagreed and retained the voluntary measures in its list of
contingency measures.
    In today's notice, we are proposing to approve contingency measure
numbers 2 and 7 on the list above, because these measures would impose
regulatory requirements. We are proposing to approve measure number 4
to the extent it prescribes measures that are enforceable and
regulatory, as opposed to voluntary measures. We also are proposing to
approve measure number 8, with the understanding that any contingency
measure under this category must be enforceable, not voluntary, to be
considered valid under our proposed approval.
    We are proposing to disapprove those measures on the list above
that are voluntary: Measure numbers 1 and 2, the portion of measure
number 4 that includes voluntary measures, and measure number 5. While
we have not required that potential contingency measures be effective
without further action by the state, we interpret the CAA as requiring
measures that will be enforceable. Voluntary measures may not be widely
implemented and, thus, cannot be relied on to ensure prompt emission
reductions to correct a violation. We also are proposing to disapprove
measure number 6 on the list of contingency measures because it will
achieve emissions reductions only if new source construction occurs.
Thus, it is not a measure that will ensure prompt correction of a
violation.
    Because we consider those regulatory contingency measures that we
are proposing to approve to be sufficient to satisfy the contingency
measure requirements for this maintenance plan, our disapproval of the
other contingency measures would not trigger a deadline for EPA to
promulgate a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c).

E. Other Aspects of the Maintenance Plan

1. VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
    40 CFR 51.904(a)(4) provides that applicable requirements in a 1-
hour ozone plan, as defined in 40 CFR 51.900(f), may not be removed
from the SIP. It allows a state to move such requirements to
contingency measures, but only if the requirements of CAA sections
110(l) and 193 are met.
    In the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, the State indicates that all
RACT requirements from the 1-hour ozone SIP will remain in place.
However, later in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, Utah proposes to
remove the approval orders for Hill Air Force Base from the SIP. When
we approved Utah's 1-hour maintenance plan and redesignation request,
we approved and incorporated these orders to satisfy applicable CAA
RACT requirements. 62 FR 28399; 62 FR 38214-38215. In place of these
approval orders, the State claims that Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) requirements, New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), and generic State rules will provide a more stringent
substitute to ``regulate over eighty-six percent of the total VOC
emissions originating from Hill Air Force Base.'' According to the
State, the ``remaining fourteen percent'' will be regulated by ``the
forthcoming Military MACT.'' The State did not propose to move the
approval orders to the contingency measures.
    We find that the State's generic statements regarding equivalency,
without a specific, comparative analysis of the units and pollutants
involved, are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CAA
sections 110(l) and 193. We are unable to conclude that the various
MACT, NSPS, and generic State rules are as or more stringent than the
approval orders. Furthermore, we are unclear what the State is
referring to when it mentions a forthcoming Military MACT. Thus, we are
proposing to disapprove the State's proposal to remove the approval
orders for Hill Air Force Base from the SIP.
    Because these approval orders would remain a part of the federally
enforceable SIP should we finalize our proposed disapproval, our
disapproval of the State's proposal to remove the approval orders would
not trigger a FIP deadline.
    The State has also submitted revisions to the following generic VOC
RACT rules that it relied on in the 1-hour maintenance plan:

R307-325, General Requirements
R307-326, Control of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum Refineries
R307-327, Petroleum Liquid Storage
R307-328, Gasoline Transfer and Storage
R307-335, Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations
R307-340, Surface Coating Processes
R307-341, Cutback Asphalt
R307-342, Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor
Recovery Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks

    These rules are further discussed in Section IV, ``EPA Analysis of
the Associated Rule Revisions,'' of this notice.
2. NOX RACT
    For the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant, the State asserts in the 8-
hour maintenance plan that ``current'' NOX emission
limitations in Section IX, Part H of the SIP are equivalent to the
NOX emission limitations that the State approved as RACT in
conjunction with the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. It appears that
Utah is using the word ``current'' to refer to the emission limit
contained in Utah's 2005 PM10 maintenance plan. We think
this limit is a daily NOX limit for the entire plant of 6.57
tons per day. However, Utah does not specify this in the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan and does not explain how this limit is equivalent to
the NOX RACT limits for boilers 1, 2, and 3 that EPA
approved with the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan in 1997. See 62 FR
28403; 62 FR 38215-38216.\3\ Furthermore, after we proposed to
disapprove Utah's 2005 PM10 maintenance plan, the Governor
withdrew it. Thus, the version of Section IX, Part H that the State
describes in the 8-hour ozone maintenance plan is not currently before
us for consideration. As a result of these issues, we are proposing to
disapprove the State's proposal to remove the NOX RACT
limits that we approved for boilers 1, 2, and 3 in 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In our 1997 action, we incorporated by reference Utah's
February 3, 1994 approval order for PacifiCorp Gadsby that specified
hourly NOX limits of 179, 204, and 203 pounds per hour
for boilers 1, 2, and 3 individually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these NOX RACT limits would remain a part of the
federally enforceable SIP, should we finalize our proposed disapproval,
our disapproval of the State's proposal to remove the NOX
RACT limits would not trigger a FIP deadline.
3. Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program
    The 8-hour maintenance plan states that the employer-based trip
reduction program, contained in Utah rule R307-320, is included in the
1-hour

maintenance plan, but that no reduction credit is claimed for it. The
maintenance plan indicates that the program is retained as a control
measure in the 8-hour plan.
    We note that we did not approve R307-320 when we acted on the 1-
hour maintenance plan and that it is not currently part of the EPA-
approved SIP. We also note that the State claimed no reduction credit
for the employer-based trip reduction program in the 1-hour maintenance
plan. Because the program only applies to governmental employers and
does not apply to private employers of the same size, the program is
inconsistent with CAA section 118. Specifically, Congress has only
waived the sovereign immunity of the federal government for purposes of
control and abatement of air pollution to the extent that
nongovernmental entities are regulated. Thus, we are proposing to
disapprove section 5.g of the maintenance plan and R307-320.
    Our disapproval of section 5.g of the maintenance plan and R307-320
would not trigger a FIP deadline because an employer-based trip
reduction program is not required.

IV. EPA Analysis of the Associated Rule Revisions

    Along with the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, the State also submitted associated
rule revisions. Some of these are relied on in the maintenance plan to
demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We evaluate
each of these rules below.
    A. R307-101-2. ``Definitions.'' The revisions to this rule that the
State submitted with the maintenance plan were effective March 9, 2007.
However, on April 17, 2008, the State submitted further revisions to
the rule that were effective on February 8, 2008. Our review indicates
that the 2008 version of the rule superseded the 2007 version. We
approved the 2008 version of the rule on September 2, 2008 and
incorporated it by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations. See
73 FR 51222. Thus, in this proposed action we are not acting on the
2007 version of R307-101-2.
    B. R307-110-13. ``Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part D, Ozone.'' This rule merely incorporates the maintenance
plan into Utah's rules. To the extent we are proposing to approve the
maintenance plan, we are proposing to approve this rule. We do not
intend to approve the incorporation of the parts of the maintenance
plan that we are proposing to disapprove.
    C. R307-320. ``Ozone Maintenance Areas and Ogden City: Employer-
Based Trip Reduction Program.'' As noted above, the program only
applies to governmental employers and does not apply to private
employers of the same size. Thus, the program is inconsistent with CAA
section 118, and we are proposing to disapprove the rule.
    D. R307-325. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: General
Requirements.'' Utah revised this rule to clarify the purpose,
applicability, and compliance schedule. Utah moved language regarding
alternate methods of control from this rule to individual VOC RACT
rules, as described in section IV.E below. Additionally, Utah deleted
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule, and
Utah made minor grammatical corrections. Utah also made administrative
revisions to the rule's title to replace the reference to ``Salt Lake
and Davis Counties'' with a reference to ``Ozone Nonattainment and
Maintenance Area.'' Per section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA, in November 2,
2006 comments to Utah, requested that Utah demonstrate that deleting
the generic RACT requirement from R307-325 would not interfere with
attainment, maintenance, or any other requirement of the CAA. In our
November 2, 2006 comments, we clarified that this demonstration could
consist of a State certification that all sources potentially subject
to the rule were controlled through adoption of specific RACT
provisions. The State provided that certification in its response to
comments (contained in the docket for this action), and further stated
that any sources not controlled through source-specific RACT
determinations would be addressed by the NOX RACT waiver
that EPA approved in 1997 (See 62 FR 38215). Therefore, we are
proposing to approve these changes.

E. Alternate Methods of Control (AMOC) and EPA's Concurrence
Requirement

    The State is proposing revisions to R307-326, R307-327, R307-328,
R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342, which are addressed individually
below. For each of these rules, the State wishes to include AMOC
language that was previously included in R307-325. That language
states:

    ``Any person may apply to the executive secretary for approval
of an alternate test method, an alternate method of control, an
alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, or an
alternate monitoring schedule. The application must include a
demonstration that the proposed alternate produces an equal or
greater air quality benefit than that required by [this rule], or
that the alternate test method is equivalent to that required by
these rules. The executive secretary shall obtain concurrence from
EPA when approving an alternate test method, an alternate method of
control, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission
limit, or an alternate monitoring schedule.''

    The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has confirmed
that this regulatory language requiring concurrence from EPA on any
AMOC applies to all the provisions in these rules that allow for DEQ to
alter the compliance requirements of the rule. EPA would like to
clarify its position on what is required for EPA to concur on such
changes.
    Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from
changing the requirements of the SIP that apply to any stationary
source except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will
be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of section 110 of
the Act and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. See, e.g.,
CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) specifically
states that in order for a variance to be considered for approval as a
SIP revision, the state must submit it in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice,
comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102.
    Furthermore, the AMOC provision does not contain specific,
objective, and replicable criteria for determining if such ``alternate
methods'' are in fact at least as effective as the required methods in
terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. For purposes of meeting
CAA requirements, EPA concurrence in the form of a SIP approval is
required for any of the alternate compliance provisions throughout
R307-326, R307-327, R307-328, R307-335, R307-340, and R307-342. This
includes approval of an alternate method of control, an alternate test
method, an alternate compliance period, an alternate emission limit, a
variance, or an alternate monitoring schedule. The public notice
process of a SIP approval will allow EPA and the public to determine
whether any new compliance terms approved by the executive secretary
continue to assure maintenance of the ambient standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ By adopting a generic SIP provision consistent with the EPA
guidance known as White Paper Number 2, a state may be able to
streamline EPA's SIP approval process for an AMOC. White Paper
Number 2, Attachment B, envisions the use of the Title V permit
process to establish alternative requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    F. R307-326. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Control
of Hydrocarbon Emissions in Petroleum

Refineries.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify the
purpose, applicability, definitions, monitoring requirements,
alternative method of control provisions, and compliance schedule.
Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this
rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the
rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was
simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to
approve these changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA
interprets the following provisions in R307-326 (in addition to any
other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of these provisions)
as being subject to the requirement in R307-326-10(1) for EPA
concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. R307-326-4(3).
    2. R307-326-6(3).
    3. In R307-326-7, the provision that reads, ``or controlled by
other methods, provided the design and effectiveness of such methods
are documented, submitted to, and approved by the executive
secretary.''
    4. R307-326-9(5)(a).
    5. In R307-326-10(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by
the executive secretary.'' In addition, we interpret R307-326-10(2),
which requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control
device within 15 days or other period approved by the executive
secretary, as not excusing any period of violation of the control
requirements in R307-326.
    G. R307-327. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Petroleum
Liquid Storage.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify the
purpose, applicability, general requirements, alternate method of
control provisions, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah
has made administrative revisions to the rule's title where the
reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced with
``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these changes.
However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the following
provisions in R307-327 (in addition to any other request for an AMOC
that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-327-7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to
EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-327-4(1), the provision that reads, ``or alternative
equivalent controls, provided the design and effectiveness of such
equipment is documented and submitted to and approved by the executive
secretary.''
    2. R307-327-6(3)(d).
    3. In R307-327-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.'' In addition, we interpret R307-327-7(2), which
requires an owner or operator to repair a malfunctioning control device
within 15 days or other period approved by the executive secretary, as
not excusing any period of violation of the control requirements in
R307-327.
    H. R307-328. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas and Utah
and Weber Counties: Gasoline Transfer and Storage.'' Utah made
additions and modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability,
definitions, transport vehicle provisions, alternate method of control
provisions, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted
language because it is not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah
has made administrative revisions to the rule's title where the
reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced with
``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these changes.
However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the following
provisions in R307-328 (in addition to any other request for an AMOC
that may arise outside of these provisions) as being subject to the
requirement in R307-328-8(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to
EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-328-4(6), the provision that reads, ``or alternate
equivalent methods * * *. The design effectiveness of such equipment
and the operating procedures must be documented and submitted to and
approved by the executive secretary.''
    2. In R307-328-4(9), the provision that reads, ``The frequency of
tests may be altered by the executive secretary upon submittal of
documentation which would justify a change.''
    3. In R307-328-5(1)(c), the provision that reads, ``or their
equivalent which have been approved by the executive secretary.''
    4. In R307-328-6(4), the provision that reads, ``or equivalent
equipment provided the design and effectiveness of such equipment are
documented and submitted to and approved by the executive secretary.''
    5. In R307-328-8(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-328-8(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-328.
    I. R307-335. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Degreasing and Solvent Cleaning Operations.'' Utah made additions and
modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability, definitions,
alternate method of control provisions, and compliance schedule.
Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this
rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the
rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was
simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to
approve these changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA
interprets the following provisions in R307-335 (in addition to any
other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of these provisions)
as being subject to the requirement in R307-335-7(1) for EPA
concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-335-4(3), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate
means approved by the executive secretary.''
    2. In R307-335-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-335-8(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-335.
    J. R307-340. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Surface
Coating Processes.'' Utah made additions and modifications to clarify
the purpose, applicability, definitions, general provisions for
volatile organic compounds, alternate method of control provisions, and
compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah deleted language because it is
not needed in this rule or any other rule. Utah has made administrative
revisions to the rule's title where the reference to Salt Lake and
Davis Counties was simply replaced with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA
is proposing to approve these changes. However, for purposes of
clarification, EPA interprets the following provisions in R307-340 (in
addition to any other request for an AMOC that may arise outside of
these provisions) as being subject to the requirement in R307-340-16(1)
for EPA concurrence, and thus subject to EPA's general statement about
alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-340-4(4), the provision that reads, ``or by an alternate
means approved by the executive secretary.''

    2. In R307-340-4(5)(a), the provision that reads, ``Sources may
request approval for longer times for compliance determination from the
executive secretary.''
    3. In R307-340-15(1), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative
method approved by the executive secretary.''
    4. In R307-340-15(2), the provision that reads, ``or an alternative
method approved by the executive secretary or equivalent method.''
    5. In R307-340-16(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by
the executive secretary.''

In addition, we interpret R307-340-16(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-340.
    K. R307-341. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas: Cutback
Asphalt.'' Utah made additions and modifications to simply clarify the
purpose, applicability, definitions, limitations on use of cutback
asphalt, recordkeeping, and compliance schedule. Additionally, Utah
deleted obsolete language because it is not needed in this rule or any
other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the rule's title
where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced
with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve the
deletion of the obsolete language and other minor revisions.
    L. R307-342. ``Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas:
Qualification of Contractors and Test Procedures for Vapor Recovery
Systems for Gasoline Delivery Tanks.'' Utah made additions and
modifications to clarify the purpose, applicability, general
requirements, and alternate method of control provisions. Additionally,
Utah deleted language because it is not needed in this rule or any
other rule. Utah has made administrative revisions to the rule's title
where the reference to Salt Lake and Davis Counties was simply replaced
with ``ozone maintenance area.'' EPA is proposing to approve these
changes. However, for purposes of clarification, EPA interprets the
following provision in R307-342 (in addition to any other request for
an AMOC that may arise outside of this provision) as being subject to
the requirement in R307-342-7(1) for EPA concurrence, and thus subject
to EPA's general statement about alternate methods of control, above:
    1. In R307-342-7(3), the provision that reads, ``or approved by the
executive secretary.''
    In addition, we interpret R307-342-7(2), which requires an owner or
operator to repair a malfunctioning control device within 15 days or
other period approved by the executive secretary, as not excusing any
period of violation of the control requirements in R307-342.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, we are proposing the following with respect to
the State's March 22, 2007 submittal:
    1. We are proposing to approve the State's maintenance
demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, but, in the alternative, to disapprove the maintenance
demonstration should comments convince us that approval is not
consistent with the Clean Air Act. (See section III.B above.)
    2. We are proposing to approve the rest of the State's 1997 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties, except for the
following aspects, which we are proposing to disapprove:
    a. Those contingency measures listed in the State's maintenance
plan that are voluntary in nature, and the contingency measure
described in the maintenance plan as ``Establish an Offset Ratio for
NOX.'' (See section III.D above.)
    b. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the VOC RACT
approval orders for Hill Air Force Base. (See section III.E above.)
    c. The State's proposal to remove from the SIP the NOX
RACT limits for the PacifiCorp Gadsby Power Plant. (See section III.E
above.)
    d. Section 5.g of the maintenance plan, which indicates that the
employer-based trip reduction program is included as part of the plan.
(See section III.E above.)
    3. We are proposing to take no action on R307-101-2 because we have
already acted on a later version of the definitions. (See section IV.A
above.)
    4. We are proposing to approve R307-110-13, but only to the extent
we are proposing to approve the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
(See section IV.B above.)
    5. We are proposing to disapprove R307-320, the employer-based trip
reduction program. (See section IV.C above.)
    6. We are proposing to approve R307-325, R307-326, R307-327, R307-
328, R307-335, R307-340, R307-341, and R307-342, subject to our
interpretation of these rules. (See sections IV.D through L above.)
    EPA is soliciting public comment on its proposed rulemaking as
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed
in this notice.

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 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 disapproves state law that does not, and it 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 (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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake
County and Davis County, page 33 of 33

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorportion by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 13, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-31562 Filed 12-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P